Reed v. Community Health Care
U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · W.D. Wash. · Washington bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se plaintiff cited at least three nonexistent Ninth Circuit decisions, repeating one previously flagged in a related case.
Consequence
Dismissal granted; court imposed prospective certification requirement for every future filing or face strikeout.
Lesson
Repeat use of nonexistent citations across related cases shifts the conversation from warning to a future show-cause for dismissal.
Verified May 7, 2026
- Citation
- Reed v. Community Health Care, No. 3:25-cv-05228-DGE (W.D. Wash. Oct. 14, 2025) (Estudillo, J.)
- Decided
- October 14, 2025
Summary
Pro se plaintiffs Robert Allen Reed and Trenna Cenise Reed sued Community Health Care and a treating physician in the Western District of Washington over events tied to a Department of Children, Youth, and Families referral. In opposing dismissal, Reed cited "Flores v. United States, 189 F.3d 477, 481 (9th Cir. 1999)" for a jurisdictional proposition; Judge David G. Estudillo found that decision did not exist on Westlaw, Lexis, or in any internet search. The same brief cited "Abbey v. United States, 953 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1991)" and "Urrutia, 44 F.3d at 1265" for a severance theory under 28 U.S.C. section 2680(h); the court could not locate those decisions either. The court flagged a pattern: in a related case (Reed v. United States of America, 3:25-cv-05435-DGE), Reed had previously been warned that the same Flores citation could not be located.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI inferred from the citation pattern; specific tool not identified on the record
What sanction did the court impose?
Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and ordered that all future filings in the case must include a signed certification stating, "I have reviewed each court decision cited in this filing. I certify that each decision cited is a valid decision that does exist." Any filing that cites authority without that certification will be stricken. Court warned that continued citation to fictitious caselaw will lead to an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as a sanction. No monetary sanction imposed in the October 14 order itself.
Why does Reed v. Community Health Care matter for law firms using AI?
Reed is the lead opinion in what appears to be an emerging Estudillo-chambers pattern in the Western District of Washington. Within three months in late 2025 and early 2026, Judge Estudillo entered three orders addressing fictitious citations: Reed (Oct. 14, 2025) against pro se plaintiffs in a civil-rights matter, Button v. Jimison (Oct. 17, 2025) against pro se plaintiffs in a defamation action, and a follow-on Button order (Jan. 20, 2026) striking subsequent filings that continued to cite cases the court could not locate. The certification language the chambers requires (“I have reviewed each court decision cited in this filing. I certify that each decision cited is a valid decision and that any language quoted from a decision that is included in this filing is accurate”) is consistent across orders, suggesting it is the chambers’ standing remedy for fictitious-citation conduct.
For firm-level intake, the Reed pattern is most relevant in two scenarios. First, when a represented litigant has a related pro se matter elsewhere on the same docket (or in the same court), a fictitious-citation finding in the pro se matter can color the represented matter’s credibility, especially before the same judge. Second, the certification remedy is forward-looking, not retrospective, and is an indicator that judges in this district are reaching for prospective tools rather than monetary sanctions in the first instance. Firms representing parties in W.D. Wash. should expect counsel may face similar certifications if a brief contains an unlocatable cite, regardless of whether AI use is established on the record.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Treat the certification language Estudillo imposed as a model: a per-filing attestation that every cited decision exists and the lawyer has reviewed it raises a credible reliability check without expanding traditional Rule 11 obligations.
- When opposing counsel cites a decision the team cannot locate after a thorough search, raise it directly with the court rather than guessing at a typo; Reed shows judges treat unlocatable cites as a Rule 11 issue.
- Document any internal use of generative AI in a research workflow with a verification step that has its own audit trail; a Bates-stamped checklist outlasts a verbal policy.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.