Powhatan County School Bd. v. Skinger (2025)

Case details

Full caption

Powhatan County School Board v. Skinger et al

Country

United States

Jurisdiction

Federal

Decided

2025

Majority

Senior (Justice)

p. 1

Case 3:24-cv-00874-REP Document 170 Filed 06/02/25 Page 1 of 29 PageID# 3837

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

POWHATAN COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 3:24cv874

V. TODD SKINGER AND KANDISE LUCAS,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Court has under consideration, inter alia.CO-DEFENDANT

DR. LUCAS' MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE ROBERT PAYNE, DISMISS SLAPP SUIT, AND RESCIND THE PERMANENT FEDERAL COURT BAN (ECF No. 9),^ the

\\ MOTION TO

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT KANDISE LUCAS'S RECUSE JUDGE ROBERT PAYNE, DISMISS SLAPP SUIT, AND RESCIND THE PERMANENT FEDERAL COURT BAN U (DKT. NO. 9) {ECF No. 10) filed by

the

("PCSB"),

the Plaintiff, Powhatan County School Board DEFENDANT'S PRO SE REPLY MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION OF [sic] EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION (DOC. 77}, DEMAND FOR SANCTIONS AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, NOTICE OF LEGAL OBJECTIONS, AND RULE 83.KM) GHOSTWRITING NOTICE (ECF No. 115) , the MOTION TO STRIKE \\ DEFENDANT'S PRO SE REPLY MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION OF EMERGENCY

U U Lucas.

p. 2

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, OPPOSITION TOPLAINTIFFS' MOTION (DOC. 77), DEMAND FOR SANCTIONS AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, NOTICE OF LEGAL OBJECTIONS, AND RULE 8 3.1{M) GHOSTWRITING NOTICE // (DKT. No. 115) (ECF No. 116), and the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S PRO SE REPLY MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION (DOC. 77), DEMAND FOR SANCTIONS AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, NOTICE OF LEGAL OBJECTIONS, AND RULE 83.KM) GHOSTWRITING NOTICE (DKT. No. 115) (ECF No. 117) filed by PCSB.

In ECF No. 10, PCSB noted that, in ECF No. 9, there were

citations by Lucas that. after diligent searches. counsel for PCSB could not locate. ECF No. 10, at 5 n.3. Also, in ECF No. 10,

9 do not

PCSB noted that many cases cited by Lucas in ECF No.

Id. In

remotely bear on the issues for which the cases were cited. ECF No. 117, counsel for PCSB noted the same two circumstances (citations to nonexistent or irrelevant cases) respecting the citations by Lucas in ECF No. 115. ECF No. 117, at 3. Also, in ECF No. 117, PCSB identified, and complained of, numerous instances in which filings by Lucas violate the Local Civil Rules respecting briefs and pleadings (Local Civil Rule 7(F)) and the Local Civil Rule respecting certain certifications (Local Civil Rule 83.1(N)), as well as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 4-5.

p. 3

noted that often indeed usually, the filings made by Lucas are accompanied by attachments that actually seem to be topical discussions that belong {if anywhere) in the text of the filing.

an exhibit). The

rather than attached thereto (for example, as result is that many, indeed most, of Lucas' filings, which appear to be intended to be briefs, materially exceed the page limitations for briefs set in Local Civil Rule 7(F).

Further, in ECF No. 9 and ECF No. 115 as in many, indeed most. of the filings made by Lucas, the text statements are not presented in complete sentences, Instead, the text statements most often are

(such as race.

presented as conclusory and pejorative assertions hostility, bias, fraud) apparently thought by Lucas to be of some import, but which, in fact, either make no point at all or assume whatever point that is trying to be made.

Equally confusing and violative of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is DEFENDANTS SKINGER AND LUCAS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 7)

ANSWER to

(the "ANSWER"), which the Court understands to be Lucas' PCSB's COMPLAINT (ECF No. 1). The COMPLAINT is 12 pages in length. containing 55 short paragraphs, 2 counts, and a prayer for relief. It is in full compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (a)(1)-(3), which provides :

p. 4

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already

no new

the claim needs

has jurisdiction and jurisdictional support; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (l)-(3) . The COMPLAINT also complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1), which requires that: [e]ach allegation must be simple concise, and direct. And, it complies withthe representations of Fed.R. civ. P. 10(b) which provides that:

[a] party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of

circumstances. Lucas' ANSWER does not comply with Rule 10(b) nor does it respond, numbered paragraph by numbered paragraph, to the

Lucas'

corresponding numbered paragraph in the COMPLAINT. Instead,

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or

ANSWER is a hodge-podge of

scandalous matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

The combination of these circumstances have made it quite difficult, indeed often impossible, for the Court to discern what Lucas is trying to say or what, if any, legal support there exists to support what she is attempting to say. And, in reading the responsive filings made by PCSB, the Court perceives that counsel

p. 5

I. FACTUAL FINDINGS

In perspective of the questions raised by PCSB in ECF Nos.10 and 117 and mindful ofthe Court's own observations when considering the filings in this case, the Court again reviewed the pending filings in this action.On the basis of that review, the Court concludes that Lucas has violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules when making filings in this case. 2 Additionally, upon its review, the Court has found numerous

(1) does not exist

instances when Lucas has cited to caselaw that: at all; (2) had incorrect reporter citations making it difficult, or. in some instances impossible, to find the putative authority;

or (4)

(3) improperly attributed decisions to the wrong court; were

given only by name and with no citation at all, making it nearly impossible for the Court to discover, and therefore examine, the authority.

For example, across the motions and briefs that the Court

2 The Court holds Lucas accountable for the violations of the rules Defendant Todd Skinger ("Skinger"), who is a Defendant in his own right and who, in no way, is being represented by Lucas, signed onto the relevant filings except for ECF No.

Skinger is advised that, unless Lucas remedies the problems with the filings herein described, they may be permanently struck from the record, rendering him unable to make reference to them. to engage in his own defense through his own filings, that is his right as a co-defendant, and that he may do so either by in the posture of a pro se litigant or through retained legal counsel.

p. 6

MOTION

addresses today, which include (1) CO-DEFENDANT DR LUCAS TO RECUSE JUDGE ROBERT PAYNE, DISMISS SLAPP SUIT, AND RESCIND THE PERMANENT FEDERAL COURT BAN, ECF No. 9, (2) DEFENDANT ADVOCATE DR.

LUCAS' RESPONSE TO THE SCHOOL BOARD'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE ROBERT PAYNE, DISMISS SLAPP SUIT,AND RESCIND THE

PERMANENT FEDERAL COURT BAN, ECF No. 11, (3) DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION,ECF

2025

No. 22, (4) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT'S APRIL 2, ORAL RULING; RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MOTION TO SEAL, ECF No. 88, and (5) DEFENDANT'S PRO SE REPLY MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION (DOC. 77), DEMAND FOR SANCTIONS AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, NOTICE OF LEGAL OBJECTIONS, AND RULE 83.KM) GHOSTWRITING NOTICE, ECF No. 115, the Court has found at least forty-two (42) citations to authority by Lucas that. inter alia. do not exist. Those citations include:

(1) T.A. V. McKinney Independent School District,861 F.2d 655 (5th Cir. 1988). ECF No. 9, at 7. The reported citation corresponds instead to an Eleventh Circuit case on entirely

p. 7

Jones

different subject matter than that described by Lucas. V. Otis Elevator Co., 861 F,2d 655 (11th Cir. 1988) (2) U H.B. V. School District of XYZ (2019). ECF No. 9, at

Nor

25 .

Lucas provides no reporter citation for this case,

does she identify the court that purportedly decided it provide any quotation from any portion of the case.^ Further, based on experience, the Court views it as entirely unlikely

XYZ exists in the United States

that a School District of because school district names are typically geographically based.^ Thus, the case name, as cited to by Lucas, alone suggests that the case is entirely fabricated and does not exist. That conclusion is confirmed by the absence of a reporter citation.

Board of Education (2016). ECF No. 9, at

(3) Eugene G. v.

case. Nor

28 .

Lucas provides no reporter citation for this

case

does she identify the court that purportedly decided the or any quotation from any portion of the case. Only one case

the timeframe of

appeared in a targeted search based on

p. 8

January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016, which was the year in which the case was purportedly decided.That case is Henry Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. S.G., 786 S.E.2d 907 {Ga. Ct. App. 2016) . The facts in that case bear no relation to those that Lucas attributes to the case cited in ECF No. 9.

ECF No.

(4) John Doe v. Henrico County School Board (2021). 9, at 29. Lucas provides no reporter citation for this case. Nor does she identify the court that purportedly decided it or

any quotation from any portion of the case.

II ECF No.

(5) Green v. Parents in Bedford County, VA (2017) . 9, at 30. Lucas provides no reporter citation for this case. Nor does she identify the court that purportedly decided it or any quotation from any portion of the case. Lucas alleges that Attorney Matthew Green ("Green"), counsel to PCSB in the present action, brought the cited case. A targeted search was made for cases brought by Green around 2017 that would match the factual description given by Lucas. None were found. (6) Powhatan County SLAPP Suit (2019) .ECF No.9 at 30. Lucas provides no reporter citation for this she identify the court that purportedly decided it or any quotation from any portion of the case, Further, Lucas does not even present this case in a proper case-name format. (7) Berkley v. United States, 287 F.3d 453 (4th Cir. 2002) . ECF No. 9, at 45. A search located no case with the citation

p. 9

287 F.3d453 (provided by Lucas) decided by the United

The case that

States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, comes back as the closest match to that reporter citation is United States v. Humphrey, 287 F.3d 422 (6th Cir. 2002), a criminal case from an entirely different circuit that has no apparent relevance to this case. The only case by the name of

w Berkley v. United States within the geographic composition of the Fourth Circuit is a decision from the United States District Court from the Western District of North Carolina, which was decided almost 20 years after the date of the case cited by Lucas. Berkley v. United States, No.20-CV-152, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64512 (W.D. N.C. Apr. 2, 2021) . That case bears no relevance to this case.

(8) n In re McDonald, 489 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2007). ECF No. 9, at 50, 72. The Court could find no case with the citation

489 F.3d 137 . The case that comes back as the closest match to that reporter citation is Lin Zhong v.United States DOJ,

p. 10

\\ 67 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. (10) Brennan v. City of White Plains, 1995) ECF No. 9, at 53. The Court could locate no case with

w n

the citation 67 F.3d 73. The case that comes back as the

In re Hannover

closest match to this reporter citation is Corp. of Am., 67 F.3d 70 (5th Cir. 1995), which bears no relevance to this case. (11) Collins V. City of New York, 461 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2006)." ECF No. 9, at 54. The Court could locate no case with

the citation 461 F.3d 300 . The case that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation is United States v. Davila, 461 F.3d 298 (2d Cir. 2006), a criminal case which no apparent relevance to the subject matter of this case. (12) O'Connor v. Board of Education, 620 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir.

// 2010) . ECF No. 9, at 54. The Court could locate no case with

the citation 620 F.3d 1234. The case that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation is S. Utah Wilderness All. V. Off, of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enf't, 620 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2010) which bears no relevance to the subject

2013) . ECF No. 9, at 55. The Court could locate no case with citation 705 F.3d 222. The case that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation is Camera v.Holder, 705 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 2013), which bears no apparent

p. 11

relevance to the subject matter of this case.

1994) ECF

(14) Gonzales v. McCarthy, 38 F.3d 544 (9th Cir. No. 9, at 55. The Court could locate no case with citation \\ u

38 F.3d 544. The case that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation is United States v. Chigbo, 38 F.3d 543 (11th Cir. 1994) , a criminal case with no apparent

case.

relevance to the subject matter of this

u (15) Andrew M. v. Delaware County Office of Mental Health, 490 F.3d 381 (3d Cir. 2007). ECF No. 9, at 56. The Court

\\ n

490 F.3d 381. The case

could locate no case with citation that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation is Smith Int'1, Inc. V. Eqle Grp. LLC, 490 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2007), which has no apparent relevance to the subject matter of this case.

\\ (16) Doyle V . New York State Office of Children and Family Services, 268 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2001) . ECF No. 9, at 56. The

268 F.3d 149. The

Court could locate no case with citation case that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation is United States v. Harrell, 268 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2001) , a criminal case with no apparent relevance to the subject matter of this case. (17) United States v. Tom, 139 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 1998). ECF No. 9, at 57, 61. The Court could locate no case with

p. 12

closest match to this reporter citation isPareto v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 319 F.3d 696 {9th Cir, 1998), which has no

apparent relevance to the subject matter of this case.

n ECF No.

(18) Graham v. Davis, 429 F.3d 211 (4th Cir. 2005) .

9, at 58. The Court could locate no case with citation429 F.3d211 decided by the Fourth Circuit. The case that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation is Spirit Airlines, Inc, v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., No. 03-1521, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 24085 (6th Cir. Nov. 9, 2005) (formerly 429 F.3d 190), a case from an entirely different circuit and one that was later withdrawn from publication because of a superseding published decision in Spirit Airlines,Inc. V. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 431 F.3d 917 (6th Cir. 2005). The only case by the name of "Graham v. Davis tt issued by the Fourth Circuit is an unpublished Fourth Circuit decision from 1992, approximately

Graham v.

p. 13

(19) w Jones V. City of Boston, 759 F.2d 4 (1st Cir.1985).

The Court could locate no case with

ECF No. 9, at 60, 64.

citation 759 F.2d 4 . The case that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation is S.E.R.Jobs for Progress V. United States, 759 F.2d 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985), which has no apparent relevance to the subject matter of this case.

\\ (20) M.L. V. Federal Way School District, 18 F.3d 453 (9th

// Cir. 1994) . ECF No. 9, at 61, 63, 71. The Court could locate

\\ tt

no case with citation 18 F.3d 453. The case that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation is Avery ex rel. Avery v. Mapco Gas Prods., 18 F.3d 448 (7th Cir. 1994), which has no apparent relevance to the subject matter of this case. (21) Smith V. Metropolitan School District, 479 F.3d 874 (7th Cir. 2007) . ECF No. 9, at 63. The Court could locate no case

with citation 479 F.3d 874. The case that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation is Kirkendall v. Dep't of the Army, 479 F.3d 830 (Fed. Cir. 2007), which has no apparent relevance to the subject matter of this

9, at 64. The Court could locate no case with citation F.3d 379. The case that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation is Doyle v. Kowitzowitz,114 F.3d371 (2d Cir. 1997) , which has no apparent relevance to the subject

p. 14

matter of this case.

ECF

(23) Smith V. Waddington, 572 F.3d 207 (2nd Cir. 2009) . No. 9, at 66. The Court could locate no case with citation

572 F.3d 207. n The case that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation is Baum v.Rushton,572 F.3d198 (4th Cir. 2009), which is a Fourth Circuit decision that has no apparent relevance to the subject matter of this case.

191 F.

(24) E.K. V. New York City Department of Education, Supp. 2d 232 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).ECF No.9 at 70. The Court

could locate no case with citation 191 F. Supp. 2d 232. The case that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation is Laurenzano v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mass. Ret. Income Trust, 191 F. Supp. 2d 223 (D. Mass. 2002), which has no apparent relevance to the subject matter of this case.

\\ (25) Gonzalez v. New York Department of Education, 105 F.3d

76 (2nd Cir. 1997) . ECF No. 9, at 70. The Court could locate

no case with citation 105 F.3d 76. The case that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation is NBN Broad. V. Sheridan Broad. Networks, 105 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1997), which has no apparent relevance to the subject matter of this case.

1999) . ECF No. 9, at 75. The Court could locate no case with

back as the closest match to this reporter citation is Pigford

p. 15

V . Glickman,185 F.R.D. 82 (D.D.C. 1999), which has no apparent relevance to this case. A targeted search provided

in the Eastern District

no case by the name "Moses v. Pomeroy of Virginia. (27) Kovacs V. Harp, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 11525 (4th Cir. 1998) . ECF No. 9, at 75. The reported citation corresponds

Reed V. Arpaio,

with an unpublished Ninth Circuit decision. No. 95-16758, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 11525 (9th Cir. Feb.23 1998) (unpublished). A targeted search revealed no case by

the name of "Kovacs v. Harp from any district court within this circuit or the Fourth Circuit itself. (28) Kerrigan v. Thomas, 404 F. Supp. 3d 700 (E.D. Va.

rt 2019). ECF No. 9, at 76. The Court could locate no case with citation U 404 F. Supp. 3d 700 provided by Lucas. The case that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation is Ferraro v. N.Y. City Dep't of Educ., 404 F. Supp. 3d 691 (E.D.N.Y. 2017), an employment law decision which has no apparent relevance to this case. A targeted search revealed no case by the name of Kerrigan v. Thomas in the Eastern District of Virginia.

p. 16

(Me. 1995), which has no apparent relevance to this action.

n ECF

96 F.3d 537 (4th Cir. 2019).

(30) Gresk v. Demetris, No. 11, at 13. The Court could locate no case with citation

96 F.3d 537 asserted to be a Fourth Circuit decision. The case that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation is Fleet Nat'1 Bank v. H&D Ent., 96 F.3d 532 (1st Cir. 1996), a case from an entirely different circuit. Furthermore, a targeted search revealed no case by the name of "Gresk v. Demetris from any district court within this circuit or by the Fourth Circuit itself. The only case that matches this case name is a decision by the Supreme Court of Indiana, Gresk v. Demetris, 96 N.E.3d 564 (Ind. 2018), which has no binding effect on the decisions of this Court and which has no apparent relevance to the subject matter of this case. (31) Doe V. Arlington County Sch. Bd., 517 F.3d 601 (4th Cir. 2008).n ECF No. 11, at 14. The reported citation corresponds with a decision by the Second Circuit rather than the Fourth Circuit. Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601 (2d Cir, 2008), which has no apparent relevance to this action. The only Fourth Circuit case similar in name to Lucas' provided citation is Doe ex rel. Doe v. Arlington Cnty. Sch. Bd., No. 99-1426, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 4287 20, 2000) (per curiam) (unpublished), an unpublished decision dated at least eight years before the purported case cited by

p. 17

Lucas. (32) Nichaus v. Huppenthal, 233 F. Supp. 3d 1076 {D. Ariz.

n 2017) . ECF No. 22, at 10. The Court could locate no case

The case that comes

with citation 233 F. Supp. 3d 1076. back as the closest match to this reporter citation is Pueblo of Pojoaque v . New Mexico, 233 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (D.N.M. 2017) , which has no apparent relevance to the subject matter of this case. (33) M.S. V. Marple Newtown Sch. Dist., 635 F. App'x 79 (3d

// Cir. 2015). ECF No. 22, at 10. The Court could locate no

The case that comes

case with citation 635 F. App'x 79. back as the closest match to this reporter citation is United States V. Flanders, 635 Fed. App'x 74 (3d Cir. 2016) , a criminal case which has no apparent relevance to the subject matter of this case.

903 F.3d 520

(34) New York v. United States Dep't of Educ., (2d Cir. 2018) . ECF No. 22, at 12. The Court could locate no case with citation 903 F.3d 520. It The case that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation States V. Islas-Saucedo, 903 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 2018), a criminal case which has no apparent relevance to the subject

(35) Fitzgerald v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd. ,556 F.3d736 742 (4th Cir. 2009). ECF No. 88, at 14, 21, 32, 33. The

p. 18

reported citation corresponds with a decision by the Ninth

United States v.

Circuit rather than the Fourth Circuit. Gonzalez-Zotelo, 556 F.3d 736 {9th Cir. 2009), a criminal case which has no apparent relevance to the subject matter of this case. Further, after a targeted search,the Court was

name as

unable to find any case with the same, or similar,

United States v. Gonzalez-Zotelo in the Fourth Circuit or any district court within the Fourth Circuit.

\\ (36) Eugene v. Kettle Moraine School District, 212 F.3d 1062 (7th Cir. 2000). ECF No. 88, at 34. The Court could locate

no case with citation 212 F.3d 1062. The case that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation is Joy v. Penn-Harris-Madison Sch. Corp., 212 F.3d 1052 (7th Cir. 2000), which has no apparent relevance to the subject matter of this case. (37) R.M. V. Board of Education of the New York City School

ECF No.

District, 2013 WL 1245512 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2013) . 88, at 35, 38. The Court could locate no case with citation \v 2013 WL 1245512 n nor could the Court find any case with a

(38) T.G. V. New York City Dept, of Education, 1086792 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2016). ECF No. 88, at 35, 38. The Court could locate no case with citation Instead, that citation corresponds with a report of a meeting

p. 19

by the Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis

2016 WL 1086792 {Mar. 22, 2016).

(ACET). 81 F.R. 15305-02,

Doe V. Board of Education of Tullahoroa City Schools, 9 (39) F. Supp. 2d 1032 (M.D. Tenn. 1998).ECF No.88 at 36. The

Court could locate no case with citation 9 F. Supp. 2d 1032. The case that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation is Am. Bldg. Maintenance Co. v. 1000 Water St. Condo. Ass'n. 9 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (E.D. Wis. 1998), which has no apparent relevance to the subject matter of this case.

2012 WL

(40) Gonzalez v. New York City Dept, of Education, 1712244 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2012). ECF No. 88, at 37. The Court

could locate no case with citation 2012 WL 1712244" provided by Lucas nor could the Court find any case with a similar Westlaw citation to it. (41)G ex rel. RG V. Fayette County Public Schools,755 F.

Supp. 927, 937 (E.D. Ky. 2010). ECF No.115 at 4. The Court

\\ n

could locate no case with citation 755 F. Supp. 927. The case that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation is DeGeer v. Gillis, 755 F. Supp. 2d 909 (N.D. 111. 2010), which has no apparent relevance to the subject matter

(42) Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Mgmt., 315 F.3d 263, 267 (4th Cir. 2002) . ECF No. 115, at 5. A search located no case

p. 20

purportedly decided by theFourth Circuit.Lucas also provides a specific pincite to a page within the case, which, because no case has that reporter number, is also patently incorrect. The case that comes back as the closest match to that reporter citation is Young v. New Haven Advoc., 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002) , a different decision from the Fourth Circuit that does not discuss the IDEA at all and, instead. deals with questions of libel and personal jurisdiction-topics that are not at issue in this case,Further, the Court did a targeted search and could identify no case by the name of Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Managementin the Fourth Circuit. In sum. the Court concludes that the cases referred to in 2-8, 10-26, 28-30, 32-34, and 36-42 do not exist and that the cases referred to in 1, 9, 27, 31, and 35 cite to entirely different cases than cited to and relied upon by Lucas, which have no bearing on. and no relevance to, this case. This problem pervades ECF Nos. 9, 11, 22, 88, and 115

1. They should be construed. administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just. speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.Id. To that end.

p. 21

inter

Rule 8 (the General Rules of Pleading") which requires,

alia, that claims, and answers to those claims be made in "short

and plain termsand that answers fairly respond" to the substance

of each allegation in the claim.Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b).

All United States District Courts are responsible for

managing the cases on their dockets mindful of the requirements of

Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. All litigants before the Court are bound by the

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), which provides:

Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court

or other paper—whether by

a pleading, written motion, signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an

that to the

attorney or unrepresented party certifies best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed afteran inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not presented for any improper purpose,

such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a

nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, reversing existing law or for establishing new law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary

identified, will

support or, if specifically so likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery;

identified, are reasonably based on belief or a

Local Civil Rule 7(F) governs the filing of briefs

Court. Local Civil Rule 7(F)(1) and (3) are one of the means by

p. 22

which the Court manages its docket. Those rules provide:

(F) Briefs Required:

(1) All motions, unless otherwise directed by the Court and except as noted herein below in subsection 7(F)(2), shall be accompanied by a written brief setting forth a concise statement of the facts and supporting reasons, along with a citation of the authorities upon which the movant relies. Unless otherwise directed by the Court,

brief and such

the opposing party shall file a response supporting documents as are appropriate, within fourteen (14) calendar days after service and the moving party

(6) calendar day

may file a reply brief within six

shall apply

periods for response and reply briefs without regard to, and are not expanded by, the mode of service used for those briefs, notwithstanding the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). No further briefs or written communications may be filed without first obtaining leave of Court.

* ■* *

(3) All briefs, including footnotes, shall be written in 12 point Roman style or 10 pitch Courier style with one inch margins. Except for good cause shown in advance of

briefs, exclusive of

filing, opening and responsive affidavits and supporting documentation,shall not exceed thirty (30) 8-1/2 inch x 11 inch pages double¬ spaced and rebuttal briefs shall not exceed twenty (20) such pages.

As reflected above. Lucas repeatedly has filed papers that

exceed the page limitations of Local Rule 7(F) either by actually

using more pages in the brief or by incorporating in the brief

p. 23

filings contain extensive hyperbole and pejorative comments about race or bias with no evidence to support the use of those terms, The result is that the reader is left to guess the points that Lucas intends to make and then to address them. That is a difficult task for Lucas' adversaries. It is an impossible one for a Court which, of course, cannot devise arguments in support of any litigant.

The most troublesome result of the review of the filings discussed above is that Lucas repeatedly has cited cases that do not exist. This is likely the result of Lucas' use of generative Artificial Intelligence ("AI"), including ChatGPT, which, on the record during a hearing held before the Court on April 2,2025, Lucas admitted to using in writing at least one of her filings. The issue of AI programs populating and citing to fake or nonexistent legal authority, whathas become known asAI

hallucinations, IS an issue for courts that is becoming far too

novel

common. Courts are increasingly having to deal with this

p. 24

issue, including those within the Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction.

3:23-cv-332, 2023

Renaissance at Antiquity, No.

E.g. , Mescall v. U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203028, at *1 (W.D. N.C Nov. 13, 2023) {"[R]ecent caselaw from outside of this jurisdiction supports the common-sense conclusion that the use of artificial intelligence creates challenges, raises ethical issues, and may result in sanctions or penalties when used inappropriately. (citing Mata v. Avianca, Inc . , No. 22-CV-1461, 2023 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 108263, 2023 WL 4114965, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023)}); see also Anonymous v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 1:24-CV-04232, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

127114, at *19-21 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2024) ("Without question. is improper and unacceptable for litigants including pro se litigantsto submit 'non-existent judicial opinionswith fake

! n 678 F.

quotes and citations. (quoting Mata v. Avianca, Inc., Supp. 3d 443, 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2023))).

The pervasive misrepresentations of the law in Lucas' filings cannot be tolerated. It serves to make a mockery of the judicial process . It causes an enormous waste of judicial resources to try to find cited cases that do not exist and to determine whether a cited authority is relevant or binding. only to determine that

In like fashion, Lucas' adversaries also must run to ground

adversaries must thus incur needless legal fees and expenses caused

p. 25

by Lucas' pervasive citations to nonexistent or irrelevant cases.

If a lawyer or law firm engaged in the conduct in which Lucas has engaged, the lawyer would be sanctioned, perhaps monetarily or with an order to pay the opponent's fees, perhaps by the entry of an adverse judgment or by removing the lawyer's privilege to

91 F.4th 610, 613-16 (2d Cir. 2024)

practice law. Park v. Kim, (threatening to impose sanctions upon legal counsel who submitted

briefing and referring the

nonexistent legal authorities attorney for investigation) ; see also Grant v. City of Long Beach, 96 F.4th 1255, 1256-57 (9th Cir. 2024) (striking pleadings and dismissal appeal because of counsel's useof fabricated caselaw). Courts have also routinely threatened to imposesanctions on litigants proceeding pro se who cite Al-hallucinated or otherwise nonexistent legal authority to support their positions. E.g. , Anonymous, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127114, at *19-21; Marion v. Hollis Cobb Assocs., Inc., No. l:24-cv-2582, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27189, at *14-15 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 14, 2025) (ordering the pro se defendant to either produce cited-to unfindable legal authority or show cause why sanctions should not be imposed); Sanders v. United

Cl. Mar. 31, 2025) (warning pro se plaintiff to not submit AI hallucinated cases in subsequent filings at the risk of sanctions);

p. 26

11, 2023) (threatening pro se defendant with sanctions if they

made-

continued to submit filings with Al-hallucinated or other

up law"); Williams v. Cap. One Bank, N.A., No. 24-2032, 2025 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 49256, at *20-21 (D.D.C. Mar. 18, 2025) (admonishing

pro se plaintiff against filing briefswith fabricated case

citations after the plaintiff seemed to rely on Al-hallucinated

cases).

However, as previously noted Lucas appears to be judgment

her from the

proof so monetary sanctions likely will not deter

abusive practices reflected in her filings and in her previously

announced, consistently followed, abuse of the litigation

proceedings created by the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. ("IDEA"). So, the Court must find

8 was

In a prior case, the Court had previously found that Lucas

strategy of bringing endless IDEA

engaged in a "scorched earth actions against Virginia school boards as a means to force them to

or otherwise incur

cave to her demands, however unwarranted,

defend against her actions.

exceptional expense in trying to

Bd. V. Matthews, No. 3:18-cv-110, 2019 U.S.

Henrico Cnty. Sch. Dist. LEXIS 171735, at *22-23 (E.D. Va. 220), aff^d, 827 Fed. App'x 367 (4th Cir. 2020). It is apparent to

of the Skinger family.

Furthermore, during an evidentiary hearing in the present action, which was held on April 2, 2025, Cheryl Simms (who also is Lucas' before the Court, Goochland Cnty. Sch. Bd. 238) on direct examination whether Minister Simms (and Lucas herself, as Simms' IDEA advocate) would continue to engage in the

Simms responded in

same practice on behalf of the Simms family.

p. 27

some other way to protect the interests of justice and to deter Lucas from the abuses which have come to mark her approach to participation as a defendant in the judicial process,

In this case the most appropriate remedy is to strike Lucas' filings where they are burdensome by virtue of volume and exceed permitted page limits, where they are not cogent or understandable (when given the generous latitude afforded pro se litigants), and where they misrepresent the law by citing nonexistent or utterly irrelevant cases. Here, that means striking the following pleadings made by Lucas:

(1) DEFENDANTS SKINGER AND LUCAS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS. ECF No. 7; and (2) CO-DEFENDANT DR. LUCAS' MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE ROBERT PAYNE, DISMISS SLAPP SUIT, AND RESCIND THE PERMANENT FEDERAL COURT BAN. ECF No. 9; and (3) DEFENDANT ADVOCATE DR. LUCAS' RESPONSE TO THE SCHOOL BOARD'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE ROBERT PAYNE, DISMISS SLAPP SUIT AND RESCIND THE PERMANENT FEDERAL COURT

(4) DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION

(5) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT'S APRIL 2,

p. 28

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MOTION TO SEAL. ECF No. 88; and (6) DEFENDANT'S PRO SE REPLY MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION (DOC. 77), DEMAND FOR SANCTIONS AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, NOTICE OF LEGAL OBJECTIONS, AND RULE 83.KM) GHOSTWRITING NOTICE. ECF No. 115. However, it is obvious that Lucas intends to present some

the relief

defense to the claims made against her and to oppose sought in the COMPLAINT. And, she is a pro se litigant. Accordingly, it is appropriate to allow Lucas to submit replacement filings that are within applicable page limits set by Local Civil Rule 7 (F) ; that do not contain redundant, immaterial,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); that

impertinent, or scandalous matter, are understandable; that contain no misrepresentations of cited

R. Civ. P. 8

authority; that comply with the requirements of Fed. and 10; and that do not violate this Court's multiple ORDERS that

(e.g., a

instruct Lucas to not file multipurpose pleading[s] single filing that contains both a brief and a motion, including as attached exhibits), ECF No. 94; Powhatan Cnty. Sch.Bd. V.

(E.D. Va. Aug. 21, 2024) (ECF No. 26).

p. 29

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, ECF Nos. 7, 9, 11, 22, 88, and 115

were STRICKEN from the record.

It is so ORDERED.

/s/

Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge

Richmond, Virginia Date: June , 2025

The Defendant, Kandise Lucas, will be referred to as the Court has When reviewing other papers filed by Lucas (a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: for PCSB has encountered the same difficulty. herein discussed because she alone has signed the relevant filings. has not 7. Therefore, the Court does not impute the same responsibility for these it does unto Lucas. However, violative filings unto Skinger as The Court advises Skinger once more that, to the extent that he wishes 3 For each of the identified citations to faulty legal authority, the Court provides the case citation, in quotes, exactly as Lucas provides it in her brief or motion. That citation is then followed by an ECF citation to the corresponding brief or motion and to the pincite therein on which the faulty legal authority was cited. 4 Throughout this ORDER, the Court bolds certain reporter numbers to demonstrate that the reporter cited to by Lucas for one case in fact corresponds to an entirely different case. 5 Identification of a quotation can (on occasion) permit identification of the case in which the quotation appears. ^ Upon a limited independent search, the Court could find no school district in the country with this name. case. Nor does 489 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2007), a criminal case with no relevance to the subject matter of this case. n (9) United States v. Hines, 665 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2012). ECF No. 9, at 50. The reported citation corresponds to a First Circuit case on an entirely different subject than that 665 F.3d 235 described by Lucas. Hines v. State Room, Inc., (1st Cir. 2011). matter of this case. \\ (13) Collins V. Board of Education, 705 F.3d 222 (7th Cir. t1 II u citation 139 F.3d 701. IIThe case that comes back as the 13 years before the purported case cited by Lucas. Davis, No. 92-6319, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 11438 (4th Cir. May 18, 1992) . u ECF (18) Bryant v. Collins, 10 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 1993). No. 9, at 59. The Court could locate no case with citation 10 F.3d 511. The case that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation is McNabola v.Chi. Transit Auth., 10 F.3d 501 (7th Cir. 1993), which has no apparent relevance to the subject matter of this case. case. // ECF No. (22) Lopez V. Mendez 114 F.3d 378 (8th Cir. 1997). U 114 // (26) Moses V. Pomeroy, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5220 (E.D. Va. // U citation 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5220. The case that comes \\ tt (29) In re Lotti, 667 A.2d 867 (Md. 1995). ECF No. 11, at

. The Court could locate no case with citation667 A.2d //

867

. The case that comes back as the closest match to this reporter citation is Mathieu v. Bath Iron Works , 667 A.2d 862 (4th Cir. Mar. is United matter of this case. // similar Westlaw citation to it. 2016 WL n n 2016 WL 1086792. of this case. n with the citation \\ 315 F.3d 263 n provided by Lucas and II. DISCUSSION The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in this Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. and contentions are (4) the denials of factual warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so lack of information. Of course, Lucas is bound by Rule 11. in this voluminous attachments (sometimes hundreds of pages). More troublesome is that almost all of Lucas' filings contain numerous conclusory and unconnectedstatements that are not or that do not contain logical complete sentences and most of Lucas' understandable points pertinent to the issues. And, Lvle Moran, Lawyer Cites Fake Cases Generated by ChatGPT in Legal Brief, LegalDive {May 30, 2023), https://www.legaldive.com/news/chatgpt-fake-legal-cases- generative-ai-hallucinations/651557/; Larry Neumeister, Lawyers Submitted Bogus Case Law Created by ChatGPT. A Judge Fined Them $5,000,AP (June 22, 2023, 6 :16 PM) , https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-chatgpt- fake- Sara Merken, AI case- lawyers-d6ae 9 fa7 9d054 2db9el4 553 97aef3 81c; 'Hallucinations' in Court Papers Spell Trouble for Lawyers, Reuters (Feb. 18, 2025, 3 : 55 PM) , http://reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/ai- hallucinations-court-papers-spell-trouble-lawyers"2025-02“18/. most are neither. the nonexistent cases or address patently irrelevant ones.The States, No. 24-CV-1301, 2025 U.S. Claims LEXIS 697, at *9-13 (Fed. Ruqgierlo, Velardo, Burke, Rizen & Fox, P.C. v. Lancaster, No. 22- 12010, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160755, at *5 n.5 (E.D. Mich. Sept. Oct. 2, 2019) (ECF No. the Court that Lucas continues to follow that strategy on behalf Lucas asked her witness. Minister co-defendant in a related case V. Simms, No. 3:25-cv- the affirmative. BAN." ECF No. 11; and FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. ECF No. 22; and 2025 ORAL RULING; RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR Halvorsen, No. 3:24-cv-216, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150086, at *8-9