Cummins v. Becerra, No. 1:25-cv-01853-DC-AC (Feb. 10, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Daniel James Cummins v. Moises Becerra
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
Feb. 10, 2026
Majority
Dena Coggins United States (J.) (unanimous Court)
DANIEL JAMES CUMMINS, Petitioner, v. MOISES BECERRA, et..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 373336Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, E.D. California.DANIEL JAMES CUMMINS, Petitioner,v.MOISES BECERRA, et al., Respondents.No. 1:25-cv-01853-DC-AC|Filed 02/10/2026ORDER TO PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE ASTO WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUEDena Coggins United States District Judge*1 On January 15, 2026, the court issued an order denyingPetitioner's motion to enforce and modify habeas relief. (Doc.No. 31.) In that order, the court noted that numerous citationsin Petitioner's motion to enforce and modify habeas relief(Doc. No. 19) and reply thereto (Doc. No. 24) contained“erroneous citations,” and indicated that the court wouldaddress those erroneous citations by separate order. (Doc. No.31 at 6 n.2.)For the reasons set forth below, the court will orderPetitioner's counsel to show cause as to why sanctions orother appropriate disciplinary action should not issue due toPetitioner's inclusion of non-existent and erroneous citationsin Petitioner's briefing, and due to law student Gina Herrera'sunauthorized appearance in this court.On December 15, 2025, Petitioner Daniel James Cumminsfiled a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) Attorney Robert G. Cummings andlaw student Gina Herrera are listed as counsel of record onthe caption of that petition. (Id.) The petition indicated thatMs. Herrera was appearing “pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(a)(2).” (Id. at 1.) On that same day, Petitioner filed a motion fortemporary restraining order, which the court granted in partand denied in part on December 23, 2025. (Doc. Nos. 3, 12.)On January 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion to enforce andmodify habeas relief, and Petitioner filed a reply in supportof that motion on January 12, 2026. (Doc. Nos. 19, 24.) Asdiscussed in detail below, both the motion and reply containednumerous citations to cases that do not exist, or that do notsupport the proposition asserted by Petitioner.On January 14, 2026, after the court issued an order requiringcounsel to appear at a hearing and to be “prepared to addressthe hallucinated citations included in Petitioner's briefs,”Petitioner filed a notice of errata indicating he “mistakenlyincluded” four cases in his reply brief, and that the identifiedcitations “do not appear in publicly available legal databasesor were incorrectly cited in the initial brief.” (Doc. Nos.26; 28 at 1.) Petitioner maintained that the “remainder ofthe brief and argument including citations remain accurateand are not impacted by this correction.” (Id.) Finally,Petitioner indicated that “Petitioner's counsel is in the processof reviewing all filings in the matter to ensure continuedaccuracy and integrity of the record” and “apologize[d] to theCourt and opposing counsel for the inadvertent inclusion ofthose citations.” (Id. at 2.) Petitioner has not filed any followup to his notice of errata despite the notice of errata failing toaddress all erroneous citations in his motion and reply.On January 15, 2026, the court issued an order vacating thehearing date and indicating that the court would address theerroneous citations by separate order. (Doc. No. 31.)As detailed in the following chart, Petitioner's motion tomodify and enforce habeas relief and reply thereto are repletewith citations to cases that do not exist, or that do not standfor the propositions asserted by Petitioner.*2 Tabular or graphical material not displayable at this time.These erroneous citations bear the hallmarks of hallucinatedcases created by artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools. See UnitedStates v. Hayes, 763 F. Supp. 3d 1054, 1065-66 (E.D. Cal.2025) (noting that cases created by generative AI tools“look[ ] like a real case with a case name,” including “acitation to the federal supplement,” “identification of a districtcourt,” and “the year for the decision,” but in actuality leadto cases that “do not address, refer to, or have anything todo with” the issues raised in the motion); Mata v. Avianca,Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443, 454 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (finding thatgenerative AI tools created case citations that had “correctnames and citations but d[id] not contain language quoted orsupport the propositions for which they [we]re offered”).Notably, Petitioner's notice of errata identified only Vuong,Arellano, Calderon, and Pham as erroneously cited, and did
DANIEL JAMES CUMMINS, Petitioner, v. MOISES BECERRA, et..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2not provide any explanation for their erroneous inclusion inPetitioner's reply. (Doc. No. 28.)Numerous courts, both within and outside of this circuit,have issued sanctions due to counsel's inclusion of erroneousand/or hallucinated citations bearing the hallmarks of AIgenerative tools such as those listed above. See, e.g., Hayes,763 F. Supp. 3d at 1073 (issuing sanctions for inclusion ofAI generated citations pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule180(e)); Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., 348 F.R.D. 489, 499 (D.Wyo. 2025) (issuing sanctions for inclusion of AI generatedcitations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11);Ezzy Credit, LLC v. Prescription Techs., Inc., No. 8:24-cv-02436-SDM-AAS, 2025 WL 3067426, at *4 (M.D. Fla.Jul 8, 2025) (issuing sanctions for inclusion of AI generatedcitations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927). Accordingly, thecourt will order Petitioner to show cause why sanctions orother appropriate disciplinary action should not issue underthese circumstances.In addition, as to the unauthorized appearance of law studentGina Herrera, the Local Rules mandate that only certified lawstudents may appear in proceedings in front of a judge in thiscourt. L.R. 181(d)(2)(B). To be certified, a law student mustbe eligible for certification, apply to the clerk for certification,and provide the written consent of their client on a consentform available from the clerk before appearing on that client'sbehalf. L.R. 181. Ms. Herrera has not provided documentationshowing she has satisfied these requirements. Additionally,the court notes that Petitioner's counsel has already beenmade aware of Ms. Herrera's unauthorized appearances in thiscourt. See Chavez v. Becerra, No. 1:25-cv-cv-02058-KES-SAB, 2026 WL 91757, at 1 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Jan 13, 2026)(noting that Mr. Cummings and Ms. Herrera's filings in thatcase “do not evidence compliance with E.D. Cal. Local Rule181” and requiring that “Attorney Cummings [ ] documentcompliance with Local Rule 181 in any further filing listingMs. Herrera.”).Accordingly, the court will also order Petitioner to show causeas to why sanctions should not issue due to Ms. Herrera'sunauthorized appearance in this case in violation of LocalRule 181.*3 For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner is ORDEREDTO SHOW CAUSE by no later than February 20, 2026, asto why sanctions should not issue due to Petitioner's useof erroneous case citations in his motion to enforce andmodify habeas relief (Doc. No. 19) and reply thereto (Doc.No. 24), and due to law student Gina Herrera's unauthorizedappearance in this case.IT IS SO ORDERED.Dated: February 9, 2026All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 373336End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access