Tomlin v. State of New Mexico
U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico · D.N.M. · New Mexico bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se civil rights plaintiff cited authorities that did not exist; failed to produce copies when ordered by magistrate.
Consequence
Complaint dismissed without prejudice; Rule 11 warning issued covering future filings; no monetary sanction.
Lesson
Failure to produce copies of cited authorities, when ordered, is itself a sanctionable event apart from the underlying citation defects.
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Tomlin v. State of New Mexico, No. 1:24-cv-01163 JB/GBW (D.N.M. Sept. 30, 2025) (Browning, J.)
- Decided
- September 30, 2025
Summary
Renesha Tomlin, a pro se plaintiff, filed a civil rights action against the State of New Mexico, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, and various state entities and officials, removed to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441. Briefing in the case included citations to authorities that did not appear in any reporter. Chief Magistrate Judge Gregory B. Wormuth ordered Tomlin to produce copies of the cited authorities, which she failed to provide. District Judge James O. Browning then issued a September 30, 2025 order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice and addressing the citation defects. The court found that Tomlin may have used "ChatGPT or similar artificial intelligence" tools that "sometimes produce hallucinations," noting either she "cannot find the requested case law, or she provides cases that do not support her contentions."
- AI tool:
- ChatGPT or similar generative AI; the order names ChatGPT explicitly as a possible source
What sanction did the court impose?
All motions to dismiss granted; complaint dismissed without prejudice. The court issued a Rule 11 warning that "[a]ny future filings that contain citations to nonexistent cases may result in sanctions, including the Court striking pleadings, filing restrictions, or dismissal." No monetary penalty was imposed and no formal sanction was entered, but the dismissal effectively ended the matter on the existing record.
Why does Tomlin v. State of New Mexico matter for law firms using AI?
Tomlin v. State of New Mexico is the earliest of the three D.N.M. AI-citation orders catalogued in this collection (Tomlin Sept. 30, 2025; Lowrey Nov. 5, 2025; Maturin Dec. 15, 2025). Chief Judge James O. Browning’s order is notable for relying on a procedural mechanism (an order from the chief magistrate, Gregory B. Wormuth, requiring the litigant to produce copies of cited cases) rather than only on the citation defects themselves. When Tomlin failed to produce, the court treated that as evidence of fabrication and dismissed the underlying complaint. The mechanism is later quoted in the Robbenhaar order in Lowrey v. City of Rio Rancho as the model practice for D.N.M. chambers handling AI suspicion. Cross-reference: Lowrey v. City of Rio Rancho (D.N.M. Nov. 5, 2025) (Robbenhaar, M.J.); Maturin v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (D.N.M. Dec. 15, 2025) (Yarbrough, M.J.).
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.
- When a pro se opposing party's citations look AI-generated, request a chambers order requiring production of paper copies of every cited authority; refusal or failure to produce becomes its own sanction trigger independent of the underlying merits.
- Document a citation-retrieval protocol for the firm's own filings that mirrors the production order: every cited authority should be retrievable in paper form on demand, since the chambers practice is now to ask.
- Train associates that a court's reference to ChatGPT 'or similar artificial intelligence' is functionally the same as a finding of AI use for sanctions-warning purposes; the conditional phrasing does not soften the Rule 11 hook.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
- The order identifies ChatGPT 'or similar artificial intelligence' as a possible source but does not definitively find that Tomlin used a specific AI tool. The Charlotin tracker classifies the AI tool as 'implied (not explicitly named)' notwithstanding the explicit ChatGPT reference; the order's treatment is suggestive rather than conclusive.
- The chief magistrate's prior order requiring Tomlin to produce copies of cited authorities (referenced in the September 30, 2025 order) is described from the cross-reference; the original Wormuth order was not separately retrieved.