Tunstall v. Alabama Department of Corrections
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division · N.D. Ala. · Alabama bar guidance
Conduct
Plaintiff's summary judgment opposition attributed a quotation on resign-or-be-fired scenarios to an Eleventh Circuit case that contains no such language.
Consequence
Here the court cautioned counsel that fabricated quotations implicate Rule 11 and will not be tolerated in future filings; no sanction.
Lesson
In this case the court checked a single quotation against the cited opinion and called it fabricated without deciding how it arose.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Tunstall v. Alabama Department of Corrections, No. 2:24-cv-01504-RDP, Memorandum Opinion (N.D. Ala. Apr. 28, 2026) (Proctor, J.), ECF No. 56
- Decided
- April 28, 2026
Summary
J. Corbin Douglas Tunstall, a former correctional sergeant at the William E. Donaldson Correctional Facility, sued the Alabama Department of Corrections for Title VII race discrimination, Title VII retaliation, and a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment after he resigned while disciplinary proceedings arising from an October 2021 inmate stabbing were pending. On the retaliation claim, his briefing appeared to contend that he had been constructively discharged. In opposing summary judgment, Plaintiff cited Thomas v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 116 F.3d 1432, 1433-34 (11th Cir. 1997), and attributed to it the quotation "'Resign or be fired' scenarios are classic jury questions." Senior Judge R. David Proctor wrote in footnote 5 that "[t]he court's own review of Thomas reveals that no such language appears anywhere in that opinion." The court declined to speculate about how the misattribution occurred. The opinion refers to Plaintiff's counsel as "her" but does not name her.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the opinion finds a quotation absent from the cited case and calls it a fabricated quotation, but does not mention AI or name a tool)
What did the court warn about?
The court cautioned counsel "that submitting fabricated quotations to the court implicates her obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and that such conduct will not be tolerated in future filings," citing Johnson v. Dunn, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (N.D. Ala. 2025). No sanction or show-cause order issued. On the merits, the court granted the Department's motion for summary judgment on all three claims. In the retaliation analysis it found the resignation voluntary, pointing to Plaintiff's own deposition testimony and a resignation letter thanking the Department, and that Plaintiff had not shown the Department acted deliberately to force his resignation. On June 9, 2026, the court denied Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration in a separate memorandum opinion and order that does not revisit the quotation.
Why does Tunstall v. Alabama Department of Corrections matter for law firms using AI?
The citation problem in Tunstall is confined to one footnote, attached to the court’s discussion of whether Plaintiff’s resignation was voluntary. Plaintiff’s opposition brief attributed to Thomas v. Dillard Department Stores the sentence “‘Resign or be fired’ scenarios are classic jury questions.” Judge Proctor checked the case and found that “no such language appears anywhere in that opinion.” The court did not say the language came from AI, and it expressly declined “to speculate as to how this misattribution occurred.”
The court nonetheless used strong words. It cautioned that “submitting fabricated quotations to the court implicates her obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11,” and stated that such conduct “will not be tolerated in future filings.” The only authority cited for that caution is Johnson v. Dunn, a 2025 Northern District of Alabama decision. No show-cause order or sanction followed in this opinion or in the June 9, 2026 order denying reconsideration.
The quotation supported a point the court rejected on the record. The opinion held that “[e]mployee resignations are presumed to be voluntary” and found Plaintiff’s own deposition testimony and his resignation letter “fundamentally incompatible” with a claim of intolerable conditions. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here a single misattributed quotation drew a written Rule 11 caution from the court even though the court also found the underlying argument unsupported.
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.
- Verify each quotation against the cited opinion before filing. Here the court's own review of Thomas found no trace of the quoted sentence.
- Review the Rule 11 exposure attached to quotations as well as citations. The court tied the fabricated quotation to counsel's Rule 11 obligations and cited Johnson v. Dunn.
- Document the source of any quotation drafted into a brief. The court declined to speculate about how the misattribution occurred.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution: the opinion does not mention artificial intelligence. It finds the quoted language absent from Thomas and calls it a fabricated quotation, and it cites Johnson v. Dunn, but it declines to speculate about how the misattribution occurred. The tracker's AI coding is a Charlotin inference.
- The opinion does not name Plaintiff's counsel; counsel's identity was not researched.