Duve v. Forrest (June 30, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Susan Elizabeth Duve v. William Charles Forrest, et al.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
June 30, 2026
Majority
Andrew M. Edison (J.) (unanimous Court)
SUSAN ELIZABETH DUVE, Plaintiff. v. WILLIAM CHARLES FORREST, et al., Defendants., Slip Copy (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 1879961Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court,S.D. Texas, Galveston Division.SUSAN ELIZABETH DUVE, Plaintiff.v.WILLIAM CHARLES FORREST, et al., Defendants.CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-cv-00158|Filed 06/30/2026Attorneys and Law FirmsSusan Elizabeth Duve, South Padre Island, TX, Pro Se.Shonda Hortness, Brookshire, TX, Pro Se.ORDERANDREW M. EDISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATEJUDGE*1 On June 15, 2026, Plaintiff Susan Duve purportedto remove two state-court proceedings into this case. OnJune 18, 2026, Judge Jeffrey V. Brown dismissed Plaintiff'snotice of removal as frivolous. In doing so, Judge Brownexpressed concern that Plaintiff “relied on generative artificialintelligence in crafting her notice of removal, and that suchuse has needlessly interfered with this court's workload andunnecessarily disrupted state-court proceedings.” Dkt. 48 at2. Judge Brown ordered Plaintiff “to file a letter, addressedto [me], ... addressing: (1) what Fifth Circuit authority theplaintiff is referencing in her notice of removal; and (2)whether the plaintiff used generative artificial intelligenceto prepare her notice of removal.” Id. at 3. Judge Browninstructed me “to take whatever action he believes necessaryto preserve the integrity of this court's operations.” Id.On June 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed the required letter confirmingthat no Fifth Circuit authority exists to support the statementsmade in her notice of removal, and that she “used generativeartificial intelligence as a research and drafting aid whilepreparing the Notice of Removal.” Dkt. 49 at 1. Plaintiffacknowledges that she “did not independently verify everylegal citation, quotation, and proposition of law generatedduring that process.” Id. Plaintiff also affirms that sherecognizes that, as a pro se litigant, she has an obligation toindependently verify legal authorities and quotations beforepresenting them to this court. See id. at 2.Plaintiff's failure to verify legal authorities, quotations, andpropositions of law before filing her notice of removal was aserious misstep. It caused unnecessary work for this court anddisrupted state-court proceedings. But Plaintiff's response tothat misstep reflects candor and professionalism. ConsideringPlaintiff's pro se status, her candor, and her assurance thatshe understands her obligations going forward, no additionalcorrective action is warranted.I recognize the benefits of GenAI to the legal profession andto pro se litigants. But GenAI is only a tool, and tools mustbe used with care. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2)provides that, by presenting a paper to the court, an “attorneyor unrepresented party” certifies that “the claims, defenses,and other legal contentions are warranted by existing lawor by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying,or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” Bynow, it is well known that GenAI can generate nonexistentcases, inaccurate quotations, and unsupported propositions oflaw. Every filer must check their work. That responsibility isespecially clear for licensed attorneys, who are officers of thecourt, trained in legal research, and subject to professionalobligations beyond those imposed by Rule 11. A licensedattorney who fails to verify GenAI content should not expectthe same leniency extended here to a pro se litigant whopromptly acknowledged her error and accepted responsibility.*2 Plaintiff is warned: such leniency will not be extendedagain. Any future filing containing fabricated, misquoted, orunsupported legal authority will result in sanctions, such asstriking the filing or awarding attorneys' fees to a party forcedto respond to such a filing. The court is confident, based onPlaintiff's letter, that Plaintiff understands this warning andthat her future use of GenAI will not unnecessarily increasethis court's workload.SIGNED this 30th day of June 2026.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 1879961
SUSAN ELIZABETH DUVE, Plaintiff. v. WILLIAM CHARLES FORREST, et al., Defendants., Slip Copy (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2End 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