M.D. Ga.: Order on Pro Se Obligations and Artificial Intelligence Disclosure Requirements…

What the order requires

As his standard practice, Senior Judge C. Ashley Royal of the Middle District of Georgia enters an order titled “Order on Pro Se Obligations and Artificial Intelligence Disclosure Requirements” in cases brought by self-represented plaintiffs. It first recites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) in full and warns that failure to comply may lead the court to order the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s fees, pay a penalty, or have the lawsuit dismissed.

On artificial intelligence, the order notes that “The Court has seen a marked increase in the use of technology such as ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Claude, Grok, or other generative artificial intelligence (‘AI’) services to prepare and file documents by unrepresented parties, who may not understand fully their pleading obligations,” and cautions “that these generative AI technologies may produce factually or legally inaccurate content.” It does not prohibit AI, but the plaintiff “must review and verify all computer-generated content (including content from legal blogs and online summaries) to ensure that it is accurate and complies with Rule 11.”

It then orders, in its June 2026 form: “In all pleadings, written motions, or other papers, Plaintiff must include a signed statement fully disclosing the use of AI to assist in the preparation and drafting of the filing. In the statement, Plaintiff must certify that he has verified the accuracy of all facts and all legal authorities cited in the filing. Failure to comply with this paragraph will result in sanctions, including, if appropriate, dismissal of this lawsuit.”

Where it appears

The order was read in Worthy v. Kendall, No. 5:23-cv-519-CAR, ECF 27 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 30, 2026), Wyatt v. United States, No. 5:24-cv-403-CAR, ECF 44 (M.D. Ga. Apr. 1, 2026), Foreman v. Linchris Hotel Corp., No. 5:24-cv-450-CAR, ECF 28 (M.D. Ga. May 27, 2026), and McArthur v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA, No. 5:26-cv-158-CAR, ECF 7 (M.D. Ga. June 15, 2026). The three earlier orders required the statement “In all pleadings”; the June 2026 order extends it to written motions and other papers.

Scope

The order is Judge Royal’s standard practice in cases brought by self-represented plaintiffs: the same text was read in four unrelated cases over three months. It binds the plaintiff in each case where it is entered, and it is not a district-wide rule. Judge Royal’s earlier Rule 11 warning to a pro se plaintiff who cited apparently fake cases is tracked separately as Gordon v. Wells Fargo.

Primary source

• Worthy v. Kendall, No. 5:23-cv-519-CAR, ECF 27 (CourtListener RECAP)
• Wyatt v. United States, No. 5:24-cv-403-CAR, ECF 44 (CourtListener RECAP)
• Foreman v. Linchris Hotel Corp., No. 5:24-cv-450-CAR, ECF 28 (CourtListener RECAP)
• McArthur v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA, No. 5:26-cv-158-CAR, ECF 7 (CourtListener RECAP)