DANIEL JAMES CUMMINS, No. 1:25-cv-01853-DC-AC Petitioner, v. ORDER TO PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT MOISES BECERRA, et al., ISSUE Respondents. On January 15, 2026, the court issued an order denying Petitioner’s motion to enforce and modify habeas relief. (Doc. No. 31.) In that order, the court noted that numerous citations in 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 would address those erroneous citations by separate order. (Doc. No. 31 at 6 n.2.) For the reasons set forth below, the court will order Petitioner’s counsel to show cause as to why sanctions or other appropriate disciplinary action should not issue due to Petitioner’s inclusion of non-existent and erroneous citations in Petitioner’s briefing, and due to law student Gina Herrera’s unauthorized appearance in this court. On December 15, 2025, Petitioner Daniel James Cummins filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) Attorney Robert G. Cummings and law student Gina Herrera are listed as counsel of record on the caption of that petition. (Id.) The petition indicated that Ms. Herrera was appearing “pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(a)(2).” (Id. at 1.) On that same day, Petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order, which the court granted in part and denied in part on December 23, 2025. (Doc. Nos. 3, 12.) On January 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion to enforce and modify habeas relief, and Petitioner filed a reply in support of that motion on January 12, 2026. (Doc. Nos. 19, 24.) As discussed in detail below, both the motion and reply contained numerous citations to cases that do not exist, or that do not support the proposition asserted by Petitioner. On January 14, 2026, after the court issued an order requiring counsel to appear at a hearing and to be “prepared to address the hallucinated citations included in Petitioner’s briefs,” Petitioner filed a notice of errata indicating he “mistakenly included” four cases in his reply brief, and that the identified citations “do not appear in publicly available legal databases or were incorrectly cited in the initial brief.” (Doc. Nos. 26; 28 at 1.) Petitioner maintained that the “remainder of the brief and argument including citations remain accurate and are not impacted by this correction.” (Id.) Finally, Petitioner indicated that “Petitioner’s counsel is in the process of reviewing all filings in the matter to ensure continued accuracy and integrity of the record” and “apologize[d] to the Court and opposing counsel for the inadvertent inclusion of those citations.” (Id. at 2.) Petitioner has not filed any follow up to his notice of errata despite the notice of errata failing to address all erroneous citations in his motion and reply. On January 15, 2026, the court issued an order vacating the hearing date and indicating that the court would address the erroneous citations by separate order. (Doc. No. 31.) As detailed in the following chart, Petitioner’s motion to modify and enforce habeas relief and reply thereto are replete with citations to cases that do not exist, or that do not stand for the propositions asserted by Petitioner. Location in Brief Case Cited in Motion and Error with Citation Quote/Position Asserted Doc. No. 19 at 3 Alec L v. Garland, 63 F.4th 1083 • Reporter/pincite corresponds to a Line 20 (9th Cir. 2023) page within a Sixth Circuit decision, United States v. Cited for the proposition: A Domenech, 63 F.4th 1078, 1083 constitutionally compliant bond (6th Cir. 2023), which pertains to hearing requires that the government bear the burden of sentencing in criminal drug cases. showing by clear and convincing The case is not relevant here. evidence that continued detention • The case cited by Petitioner does is justified by actual, not appear to exist. individualized evidence of danger or flight risk.
Doc. No. 19 at 4 Garcia v. INS, 204 F.3d 769, 772 • Reporter/pincite does not Line 11 (9th Cir. 2000) correspond to a case. • The court found Garcia v. INS at Cited for the proposition: Arrests 222 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2000), and dismissed charges cannot which is an immigration case but establish dangerousness without pertains to notice of an reliable evidence. immigration hearing, not consideration of dismissed criminal charges.
Doc. No. 19 at 4 Pastor-Camarena v. INS, 964 • Reporter/pincite corresponds to Line 12 F.2d 365, 367 (5th Cir. 1992) United States v. Green, 964 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1992), which Cited for the proposition: Arrests pertains to mail fraud. and dismissed charges cannot • The court found Pastor- establish dangerousness without Camarena v. Smith, 977 F. Supp. reliable evidence. 1415 (W.D. Wash. 1997), which interprets an irrelevant section of Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
Doc. No. 19 at 4 Matter of Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. • Citation is accurate, but holding is Line 13 37, 40 (BIA 2006) directly contrary to asserted proposition. See Matter of Cited for the proposition: Arrests Guerra, 24 I. & N. at 40 (“In the and dismissed charges cannot context of custody establish dangerousness without redeterminations, Immigration reliable evidence. Judges are not limited to considering only criminal convictions in assessing whether an alien is a danger to the community. . . Therefore, although we recognize that the respondent has not been convicted of the offenses charged in the criminal complaint, we find that unfavorable evidence of his conduct, including evidence of criminal activity, is pertinent to the Immigration Judge’s analysis regarding whether the respondent poses a danger to the community.”)
Doc. No. 19 at 5 Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 • Correct citation but inaccurate Line 11 (1976) (“The loss of liberty for quote. even minimal periods of time • Actual quote: “The loss of First constitutes irreparable injury.”) Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Doc. No. 24 at 2 Vuong v. Jennings, No. 20-cv- • Case name does not exist. N.D. Line 19 03050 (N.D. Cal. 2020) Cal. Case No. 20-cv-03050
Cited for proposition: Denial of corresponds to Adobe Inc. v. access to medical treatment Cornerstone Information Systems, constitutes irreparable harm. Inc., which does not pertain to denial of medical treatment. Doc. No. 24 at 2 Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, 455 F. • Reporter/Pincite corresponds to Line 20 Supp. 3d 1029, 1039–40 (N.D. Rocky Mountain Wild, Inc. v. Cal. 2020) (recognizing denial of medical care as irreparable injury United States Bureau of Land warranting release). Mgmt., 455 F. Supp. 3d 1005 (D. Colo. 2020), which does not pertain to medical care. • Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, 465 F. Supp. 3d 1028, pertains to immigration detention during COVID and does not support the asserted proposition. Doc. No. 24 at 2 Phan v. I.N.S., 56 F.3d 1393 (9th • No case exists with this reporter Line 24 Cir. 1995) information, and no case found
Cited for the proposition: Habeas with this name. is still appropriate to challenge the adequacy of a bond hearing.
Doc. No. 24 at 3 Arellano v. Wolf, No. 1:20-cv- • Incorrect case number and judges. Line 1 0 2 0 0 6 2 4 0 9 ) -NONE-EPG (E.D. Cal. • E.D. Cal. Case No. 1:20-cv- 00649-ADA-HBK corresponds to
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
DANIEL JAMES CUMMINS, No. 1:25-cv-01853-DC-AC Petitioner, v. ORDER TO PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT MOISES BECERRA, et al., ISSUE Respondents. On January 15, 2026, the court issued an order denying Petitioner’s motion to enforce and modify habeas relief. (Doc. No. 31.) In that order, the court noted that numerous citations in 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 would address those erroneous citations by separate order. (Doc. No. 31 at 6 n.2.) For the reasons set forth below, the court will order Petitioner’s counsel to show cause as to why sanctions or other appropriate disciplinary action should not issue due to Petitioner’s inclusion of non-existent and erroneous citations in Petitioner’s briefing, and due to law student Gina Herrera’s unauthorized appearance in this court. On December 15, 2025, Petitioner Daniel James Cummins filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) Attorney Robert G. Cummings and law student Gina Herrera are listed as counsel of record on the caption of that petition. (Id.) The petition indicated that Ms. Herrera was appearing “pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(a)(2).” (Id. at 1.) On that same day, Petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order, which the court granted in part and denied in part on December 23, 2025. (Doc. Nos. 3, 12.) On January 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion to enforce and modify habeas relief, and Petitioner filed a reply in support of that motion on January 12, 2026. (Doc. Nos. 19, 24.) As discussed in detail below, both the motion and reply contained numerous citations to cases that do not exist, or that do not support the proposition asserted by Petitioner. On January 14, 2026, after the court issued an order requiring counsel to appear at a hearing and to be “prepared to address the hallucinated citations included in Petitioner’s briefs,” Petitioner filed a notice of errata indicating he “mistakenly included” four cases in his reply brief, and that the identified citations “do not appear in publicly available legal databases or were incorrectly cited in the initial brief.” (Doc. Nos. 26; 28 at 1.) Petitioner maintained that the “remainder of the brief and argument including citations remain accurate and are not impacted by this correction.” (Id.) Finally, Petitioner indicated that “Petitioner’s counsel is in the process of reviewing all filings in the matter to ensure continued accuracy and integrity of the record” and “apologize[d] to the Court and opposing counsel for the inadvertent inclusion of those citations.” (Id. at 2.) Petitioner has not filed any follow up to his notice of errata despite the notice of errata failing to address all erroneous citations in his motion and reply. On January 15, 2026, the court issued an order vacating the hearing date and indicating that the court would address the erroneous citations by separate order. (Doc. No. 31.) As detailed in the following chart, Petitioner’s motion to modify and enforce habeas relief and reply thereto are replete with citations to cases that do not exist, or that do not stand for the propositions asserted by Petitioner. Location in Brief Case Cited in Motion and Error with Citation Quote/Position Asserted Doc. No. 19 at 3 Alec L v. Garland, 63 F.4th 1083 • Reporter/pincite corresponds to a Line 20 (9th Cir. 2023) page within a Sixth Circuit decision, United States v. Cited for the proposition: A Domenech, 63 F.4th 1078, 1083 constitutionally compliant bond (6th Cir. 2023), which pertains to hearing requires that the government bear the burden of sentencing in criminal drug cases. showing by clear and convincing The case is not relevant here. evidence that continued detention • The case cited by Petitioner does is justified by actual, not appear to exist. individualized evidence of danger or flight risk.
Doc. No. 19 at 4 Garcia v. INS, 204 F.3d 769, 772 • Reporter/pincite does not Line 11 (9th Cir. 2000) correspond to a case. • The court found Garcia v. INS at Cited for the proposition: Arrests 222 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2000), and dismissed charges cannot which is an immigration case but establish dangerousness without pertains to notice of an reliable evidence. immigration hearing, not consideration of dismissed criminal charges.
Doc. No. 19 at 4 Pastor-Camarena v. INS, 964 • Reporter/pincite corresponds to Line 12 F.2d 365, 367 (5th Cir. 1992) United States v. Green, 964 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1992), which Cited for the proposition: Arrests pertains to mail fraud. and dismissed charges cannot • The court found Pastor- establish dangerousness without Camarena v. Smith, 977 F. Supp. reliable evidence. 1415 (W.D. Wash. 1997), which interprets an irrelevant section of Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
Doc. No. 19 at 4 Matter of Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. • Citation is accurate, but holding is Line 13 37, 40 (BIA 2006) directly contrary to asserted proposition. See Matter of Cited for the proposition: Arrests Guerra, 24 I. & N. at 40 (“In the and dismissed charges cannot context of custody establish dangerousness without redeterminations, Immigration reliable evidence. Judges are not limited to considering only criminal convictions in assessing whether an alien is a danger to the community. . . Therefore, although we recognize that the respondent has not been convicted of the offenses charged in the criminal complaint, we find that unfavorable evidence of his conduct, including evidence of criminal activity, is pertinent to the Immigration Judge’s analysis regarding whether the respondent poses a danger to the community.”)
Doc. No. 19 at 5 Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 • Correct citation but inaccurate Line 11 (1976) (“The loss of liberty for quote. even minimal periods of time • Actual quote: “The loss of First constitutes irreparable injury.”) Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Doc. No. 24 at 2 Vuong v. Jennings, No. 20-cv- • Case name does not exist. N.D. Line 19 03050 (N.D. Cal. 2020) Cal. Case No. 20-cv-03050
Cited for proposition: Denial of corresponds to Adobe Inc. v. access to medical treatment Cornerstone Information Systems, constitutes irreparable harm. Inc., which does not pertain to denial of medical treatment. Doc. No. 24 at 2 Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, 455 F. • Reporter/Pincite corresponds to Line 20 Supp. 3d 1029, 1039–40 (N.D. Rocky Mountain Wild, Inc. v. Cal. 2020) (recognizing denial of medical care as irreparable injury United States Bureau of Land warranting release). Mgmt., 455 F. Supp. 3d 1005 (D. Colo. 2020), which does not pertain to medical care. • Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, 465 F. Supp. 3d 1028, pertains to immigration detention during COVID and does not support the asserted proposition. Doc. No. 24 at 2 Phan v. I.N.S., 56 F.3d 1393 (9th • No case exists with this reporter Line 24 Cir. 1995) information, and no case found
Cited for the proposition: Habeas with this name. is still appropriate to challenge the adequacy of a bond hearing.
Doc. No. 24 at 3 Arellano v. Wolf, No. 1:20-cv- • Incorrect case number and judges. Line 1 0 2 0 0 6 2 4 0 9 ) -NONE-EPG (E.D. Cal. • E.D. Cal. Case No. 1:20-cv- 00649-ADA-HBK corresponds to
Cited for the proposition: In the Lopez v. City of Merced County et Eastern District, courts have al. routinely granted habeas relief • Lopez pertains to a case of post-bond hearing where the mistaken identity and does not process was constitutionally support Petitioner’s asserted deficient. proposition. • No case found with this name. Doc. No. 24 at 3 Calderon v. Barr, No. 1:20-cv- • Incorrect case number and judges. Line 2 00796-NONE-EPG (E.D. Cal. • E.D. Cal. Case No. 1:20-cv- 2020) 00796-AWI-SKO corresponds to Cited for the proposition: In the Yellowcake, Inc. v. Platino Eastern District, courts have Records, et al. routinely granted habeas relief • Yellowcake is an intellectual post-bond hearing where the property dispute and does not p d r e o fi c c e i s e s n t w . as constitutionally support Petitioner’s asserted proposition.
• No case found with this name. These erroneous citations bear the hallmarks of hallucinated cases created by artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools. See United States 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 “a citation to the federal supplement,” “identification of a district court,” and “the year for the decision,” but in actuality lead to cases that “do not address, refer to, or have anything to do with” the issues raised in the motion); Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443, 454 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (finding that generative AI tools created case citations that had “correct names and citations but d[id] not contain language quoted or support 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 not provide any explanation for their erroneous inclusion in Petitioner’s reply. (Doc. No. 28.) Numerous courts, both within and outside of this circuit, have issued sanctions due to counsel’s inclusion of erroneous and/or hallucinated citations bearing the hallmarks of AI generative tools such as those listed above. See, e.g., Hayes, 763 F. Supp. 3d at 1073 (issuing sanctions for inclusion of AI generated citations pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 180(e)); Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., 348 F.R.D. 489, 499 (D. Wyo. 2025) (issuing sanctions for inclusion of AI generated citations 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 generated citations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927). Accordingly, the court will order Petitioner to show cause why sanctions or other appropriate disciplinary action should not issue under these circumstances. In addition, as to the unauthorized appearance of law student Gina Herrera, the Local Rules mandate that only certified law students may appear in proceedings in front of a judge in this court. L.R. 181(d)(2)(B). To be certified, a law student must be eligible for certification, apply to the clerk for certification, and provide the written consent of their client on a consent form available from the clerk before appearing on that client’s behalf. L.R. 181. Ms. Herrera has not provided documentation showing she has satisfied these requirements. Additionally, the court notes that Petitioner’s counsel has already been made aware of Ms. Herrera’s unauthorized appearances in this court. 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 that case “do not evidence compliance with E.D. Cal. Local Rule 181” and requiring that “Attorney Cummings [] document compliance with Local Rule 181 in any further filing listing Ms. Herrera.”’). Accordingly, the court will also order Petitioner to show cause as to why sanctions should not issue due to Ms. Herrera’s unauthorized appearance in this case in violation of Local Rule 181. For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by no later than February 20, 2026, as to why sanctions should not issue due to Petitioner’s use of erroneous case citations in his motion to enforce and modify habeas relief (Doc. No. 19) and reply thereto (Doc. No. 24), and due to law student Gina Herrera’s unauthorized appearance in this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. : Dated: _February 9, 2026 DUG Dena Coggins United States District Judge