Pete v. United States Dep't of Justice, No. 1:25-CV-00386-MAC (E.D. Tex. 2025)

Case details
Full caption
DAVID R. PETE v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Eastern District of Texas
Decided
2025
Disposition
Motion Denied
Majority
Order Adopting The (J.) (unanimous Court)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DAVID R. PETE, Plaintiff, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; PAM BONDI, in her official capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL of the UNITED STATES; and JAY R. COMBS, in his official capacity as UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-00386-MAC ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules of Court for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges, the district court referred this proceeding to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, to conduct all pretrial proceedings, to enter findings of fact and recommend disposition on case-dispositive matters, and to determine non-dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-72. On August 12, 2025, Judge Stetson recommended that pro se Plaintiff David R. Pete’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (#2) be denied. On August 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed timely objections (#4) to Judge Stetson’s report and recommendation (#3). In his objections, Plaintiff cited two cases that this court could not locate nor verify the existence of, so the court ordered Plaintiff to provide copies of those cases no later than September 9, 2025 (#6). Case 1:25-cv-00386-MAC-CLS Document 10 Filed 10/10/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 26
On September 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed his response to the court’s order to file copies of the cases he cited (#7). Therein, Plaintiff avers he took “concrete remedial steps” to cure the time wasted by his use of artificial-intelligence-hallucinated case citations, including “submission of the verified opinions as exhibits” (#7 at 2). Indeed, Plaintiff’s response stresses how he “obtained authentic copies” of those cases and “attached” them as exhibits. See (id.). Plaintiff did not attach any exhibits to his response to this court’s order. The court is convinced that those two case citations are AI-hallucinated. Plaintiff’s insistence that they exist—and that he provided copies of them to this court—is bewildering. Seemingly, Plaintiff is “attempt[ing] to persuade a court . . . by relying on fake opinions,” which “is an abuse of the adversary system.” Ford v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, No. 24-50053, 2025 WL 1008537, at *1 n.1 (5th Cir. Apr. 4, 2025) (quoting Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, 615 (2d Cir. 2024)); (#6 at 2). Because Plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge Stetson’s Report and Recommendation to deny Plaintiff in forma pauperis status rely on fake opinions, the court will not consider them. The court therefore reviews Judge Stetson’s recommendation to deny Plaintiff pauper status for clear error. Having done so, the court finds no error. The recommendation of the magistrate judge (#3) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (#2) is DENIED. Within ten (10) days of this order, Plaintiff shall pay the court’s filing fee of $405 to proceed with this action, or it will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ________________________________________MARCIA A. CRONEUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 10th day of October, 2025.Case 1:25-cv-00386-MAC-CLS Document 10 Filed 10/10/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 27
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