That Xiong v. Minga Wofford
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California · E.D. Cal. · California bar guidance
Verified May 5, 2026
- Citation
- That Xiong v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-2004 CSK, 2026 WL 177739 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2026); follow-on OSC at id. (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2026)
- Decided
- January 21, 2026
Summary
In a habeas reply brief, petitioner's counsel Robert Gary Cummings cited two nonexistent cases: Phan v. Barr, 2019 WL 7758773 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2019), and Flores v. Barr, 2020 WL 1939565 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2020). Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim flagged both as apparent hallucinations in the order setting the hearing and addressed them at the January 13, 2026 hearing. Counsel admitted error, apologized, and substituted citations to two real cases (Hoac v. Becerra and Phan v. Becerra) that the court confirmed exist and are relevant. Less than three months later, on April 9, 2026, the court issued a second Order to Show Cause in the same docket after another filing cited G.A.A. v. Chestnut, 2025 WL 3030589, a Westlaw reporter citation with no corresponding decision.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
No monetary sanction was imposed in the January 21, 2026 order. The court ordered petitioner's counsel to obtain the hearing transcript, provide it to the certified law student who appeared on petitioner's filings and to any staff assisting counsel, require them to read the transcript, and file written confirmation that the order had been completed. The underlying motion for preliminary injunction was denied on the merits, separately from the citation issue. The April 9, 2026 OSC required counsel to explain the origin of the second fabricated citation and to show cause why further sanctions, fee-shifting, or bar referral should not issue; disposition pending.
Why does That Xiong v. Minga Wofford matter for law firms using AI?
Xiong v. Wofford illustrates the now-routine middle path for AI-fabricated citations: the January 2026 order imposed no monetary sanction and no bar referral, just a directive that the lawyer share the hearing transcript with the law student and staff who helped prepare the filing and confirm in writing that they read it. Courts increasingly treat AI-fabricated citations as a training failure to be remediated rather than misconduct to be punished, but they still build a public record naming the attorney and the false cite, which is what malpractice underwriters and opposing counsel will find on Westlaw later. The April 2026 follow-on OSC for a different fabricated citation in the same docket also matters: a remediation-only first order does not give counsel a free pass on the second incident, and the next order in a repeat-offender posture rarely stays warning-only.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
- Document mirror (Damien Charlotin hallucination database, Westlaw printout)
- Document mirror (Damien Charlotin hallucination database, Westlaw printout)
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.
- Identity of the attorney sanctioned in the April 9, 2026 follow-on OSC could not be confirmed from a parsed copy of that order; the January 2026 order names Robert Gary Cummings as counsel of record.