Reyes v. Bailey
U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico · D.N.M. · New Mexico bar guidance
Conduct
A pro se plaintiff sought sanctions against defendants for saying he may have fabricated a case; the court noted he had admitted misciting a case in his amended complaint.
Consequence
Here the court found the defendants' fabricated-case contention reasonable, denied the plaintiff's sanctions motion, and imposed no sanction on either side.
Lesson
Here the court treated a party's own admission of a miscited case as making the opponent's fabrication concern reasonable, not sanctionable.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- Reyes v. Bailey, No. 2:24-cv-00831-KG-KRS, Memorandum Opinion and Order (D.N.M. Aug. 28, 2026) (Gonzales, C.J.), ECF No. 87
- Decided
- August 28, 2026
Summary
Pro se plaintiff Charlie Reyes (called Charles Reyes in the body of the order), in an action against Bryce Bailey and other defendants, moved for an order to show cause, which Chief Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales construed as a Rule 11 sanctions motion against the defendants for an alleged pattern of misrepresentations. Among five grounds, Reyes contended that the defendants "misrepresented that he hallucinated a case citation in his pleadings." The others concerned omission of state-court filings from the notice of removal, a motion to quash service, an affirmative defense of good faith belief, and the defendants' response to his statement of undisputed facts on summary judgment. On the citation point, the court noted that Reyes "admits that he miscited a case in his Amended Complaint," citing Doc. 65, and concluded that "Defendants' contention that Mr. Reyes may have fabricated a case was reasonable." The order does not say whether AI was involved in the miscitation, does not identify the case, and does not describe any sanction or warning directed at Reyes for it.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the order's only AI-related reference is its summary of the pro se plaintiff's contention that defendants misrepresented that he "hallucinated a case citation"; the court makes no AI finding)
- Amount or terms:
- None; the court denied the pro se plaintiff's motion for sanctions against defendants and denied defendants' fee request
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
The court rejected each of Reyes's arguments and declined to issue sanctions. It found the defendants' fabricated-case contention reasonable given Reyes's admission; saw no appreciable effect from the incomplete state-court record; found no indication that the motion to quash was filed to delay or increase litigation costs; found no Rule 11 violation in a defense the court had already refused to bar on summary judgment; and explained that Reyes misunderstood the Rule 56 burden. It denied Reyes's motion for an order to show cause, denied as moot his motion to strike two defendants' notice joining the response as untimely, and denied the defendants' request for attorney fees. The court imposed no sanction on either side, and nothing in the order directs any consequence at Reyes for the miscited case.
Why does Reyes v. Bailey matter for law firms using AI?
Reyes is at the edge of the AI-sanctions category. The only AI-adjacent language in the order is the court’s summary of the pro se plaintiff’s grievance that the defendants had “misrepresented that he hallucinated a case citation.” The court’s answer was brief: Reyes had admitted misciting a case in his amended complaint, “[t]hus, Defendants’ contention that Mr. Reyes may have fabricated a case was reasonable.”
The order does not say that the citation was generated by AI, does not identify the case, and does not sanction or warn Reyes. The significance for practitioners is the converse of the usual posture: a litigant tried to turn the opposing party’s concern about a possibly fabricated citation into a Rule 11 violation, and the court declined.
The case is included because it appears in the Charlotin tracker. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, in this order, raising a documented concern that an opponent’s citation may be fabricated was treated as a reasonable litigation position.
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.
- Document the basis for raising a possible fabricated citation against an opponent; here the court found the defense contention reasonable because the plaintiff admitted the miscitation.
- Review whether an opponent's sanctions motion targets a fabrication allegation; the court rejected the claim that flagging a suspect citation was itself a Rule 11 violation.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is a Charlotin tracker inference. The order uses "hallucinated" only in summarizing the plaintiff's own contention, and describes the underlying problem as a miscited case that the defendants reasonably contended 'may have' been fabricated; it does not mention AI or any tool.
- The miscited case and the content of Doc. 65 (plaintiff's admission) are not described in the order and were not read.