1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL JAMES CUMMINS, No. 1:25-cv-01853-DC-AC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER TO PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT 14 MOISES BECERRA, et al., ISSUE 15 Respondents. 16 17 On January 15, 2026, the court issued an order denying Petitioner’s motion to enforce and 18 modify habeas relief. (Doc. No. 31.) In that order, the court noted that numerous citations in 19 Petitioner’s motion to enforce and modify habeas relief (Doc. No. 19) and reply thereto (Doc. No. 20 24) contained “erroneous citations,” and indicated that the court would address those erroneous 21 citations by separate order. (Doc. No. 31 at 6 n.2.) 22 For the reasons set forth below, the court will order Petitioner’s counsel to show cause as 23 to why sanctions or other appropriate disciplinary action should not issue due to Petitioner’s 24 inclusion of non-existent and erroneous citations in Petitioner’s briefing, and due to law student 25 Gina Herrera’s unauthorized appearance in this court. 26 On December 15, 2025, Petitioner Daniel James Cummins filed a petition for writ of 27 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) Attorney Robert G. Cummings and 28 law student Gina Herrera are listed as counsel of record on the caption of that petition. (Id.) The 1 petition indicated that Ms. Herrera was appearing “pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(a)(2).” (Id. at 1.) 2 On that same day, Petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order, which the court 3 granted in part and denied in part on December 23, 2025. (Doc. Nos. 3, 12.) 4 On January 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion to enforce and modify habeas relief, and 5 Petitioner filed a reply in support of that motion on January 12, 2026. (Doc. Nos. 19, 24.) As 6 discussed in detail below, both the motion and reply contained numerous citations to cases that do 7 not exist, or that do not support the proposition asserted by Petitioner. 8 On January 14, 2026, after the court issued an order requiring counsel to appear at a 9 hearing and to be “prepared to address the hallucinated citations included in Petitioner’s briefs,” 10 Petitioner filed a notice of errata indicating he “mistakenly included” four cases in his reply brief, 11 and that the identified citations “do not appear in publicly available legal databases or were 12 incorrectly cited in the initial brief.” (Doc. Nos. 26; 28 at 1.) Petitioner maintained that the 13 “remainder of the brief and argument including citations remain accurate and are not impacted by 14 this correction.” (Id.) Finally, Petitioner indicated that “Petitioner’s counsel is in the process of 15 reviewing all filings in the matter to ensure continued accuracy and integrity of the record” and 16 “apologize[d] to the Court and opposing counsel for the inadvertent inclusion of those citations.” 17 (Id. at 2.) Petitioner has not filed any follow up to his notice of errata despite the notice of errata 18 failing to address all erroneous citations in his motion and reply. 19 On January 15, 2026, the court issued an order vacating the hearing date and indicating 20 that the court would address the erroneous citations by separate order. (Doc. No. 31.) 21 As detailed in the following chart, Petitioner’s motion to modify and enforce habeas relief 22 and reply thereto are replete with citations to cases that do not exist, or that do not stand for the 23 propositions asserted by Petitioner. 24 Location in Brief Case Cited in Motion and Error with Citation Quote/Position Asserted 25 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 26 decision, United States v. 27 Cited for the proposition: A Domenech, 63 F.4th 1078, 1083 constitutionally compliant bond (6th Cir. 2023), which pertains to 28 hearing requires that the 1 government bear the burden of sentencing in criminal drug cases. showing by clear and convincing The case is not relevant here. 2 evidence that continued detention • The case cited by Petitioner does 3 is justified by actual, not appear to exist. individualized evidence of danger 4 or flight risk.
5 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. 6 • The court found Garcia v. INS at 7 Cited for the proposition: Arrests 222 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2000), and dismissed charges cannot which is an immigration case but 8 establish dangerousness without pertains to notice of an reliable evidence. immigration hearing, not 9 consideration of dismissed 10 criminal charges.
11 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 12 365 (5th Cir. 1992), which Cited for the proposition: Arrests pertains to mail fraud. 13 and dismissed charges cannot • The court found Pastor- 14 establish dangerousness without Camarena v. Smith, 977 F. Supp. reliable evidence. 1415 (W.D. Wash. 1997), which 15 interprets an irrelevant section of Illegal Immigration Reform and 16 Immigrant Responsibility Act of 17 1996.
18 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 19 proposition. See Matter of Cited for the proposition: Arrests Guerra, 24 I. & N. at 40 (“In the 20 and dismissed charges cannot context of custody 21 establish dangerousness without redeterminations, Immigration reliable evidence. Judges are not limited to 22 considering only criminal convictions in assessing whether 23 an alien is a danger to the community. . . Therefore, 24 although we recognize that the 25 respondent has not been convicted of the offenses charged in the 26 criminal complaint, we find that unfavorable evidence of his 27 conduct, including evidence of criminal activity, is pertinent to 28 1 the Immigration Judge’s analysis regarding whether the respondent 2 poses a danger to the 3 community.”)
4 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. 5 even minimal periods of time • Actual quote: “The loss of First constitutes irreparable injury.”) Amendment freedoms, for even 6 minimal periods of time, 7 unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” 8 Doc. No. 24 at 2 Vuong v. Jennings, No. 20-cv- • Case name does not exist. N.D. 9 Line 19 03050 (N.D. Cal. 2020) Cal. Case No. 20-cv-03050
10 Cited for proposition: Denial of corresponds to Adobe Inc. v. access to medical treatment Cornerstone Information Systems, 11 constitutes irreparable harm. Inc., which does not pertain to denial of medical treatment. 12 Doc. No. 24 at 2 Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, 455 F. • Reporter/Pincite corresponds to 13 Line 20 Supp. 3d 1029, 1039–40 (N.D. Rocky Mountain Wild, Inc. v. Cal. 2020) (recognizing denial of 14 medical care as irreparable injury United States Bureau of Land warranting release). Mgmt., 455 F. Supp. 3d 1005 (D. 15 Colo. 2020), which does not pertain to medical care. 16 • Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, 465 F. 17 Supp. 3d 1028, pertains to immigration detention during 18 COVID and does not support the asserted proposition. 19 Doc. No. 24 at 2 Phan v. I.N.S., 56 F.3d 1393 (9th • No case exists with this reporter 20 Line 24 Cir. 1995) information, and no case found
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL JAMES CUMMINS, No. 1:25-cv-01853-DC-AC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER TO PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT 14 MOISES BECERRA, et al., ISSUE 15 Respondents. 16 17 On January 15, 2026, the court issued an order denying Petitioner’s motion to enforce and 18 modify habeas relief. (Doc. No. 31.) In that order, the court noted that numerous citations in 19 Petitioner’s motion to enforce and modify habeas relief (Doc. No. 19) and reply thereto (Doc. No. 20 24) contained “erroneous citations,” and indicated that the court would address those erroneous 21 citations by separate order. (Doc. No. 31 at 6 n.2.) 22 For the reasons set forth below, the court will order Petitioner’s counsel to show cause as 23 to why sanctions or other appropriate disciplinary action should not issue due to Petitioner’s 24 inclusion of non-existent and erroneous citations in Petitioner’s briefing, and due to law student 25 Gina Herrera’s unauthorized appearance in this court. 26 On December 15, 2025, Petitioner Daniel James Cummins filed a petition for writ of 27 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) Attorney Robert G. Cummings and 28 law student Gina Herrera are listed as counsel of record on the caption of that petition. (Id.) The 1 petition indicated that Ms. Herrera was appearing “pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(a)(2).” (Id. at 1.) 2 On that same day, Petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order, which the court 3 granted in part and denied in part on December 23, 2025. (Doc. Nos. 3, 12.) 4 On January 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion to enforce and modify habeas relief, and 5 Petitioner filed a reply in support of that motion on January 12, 2026. (Doc. Nos. 19, 24.) As 6 discussed in detail below, both the motion and reply contained numerous citations to cases that do 7 not exist, or that do not support the proposition asserted by Petitioner. 8 On January 14, 2026, after the court issued an order requiring counsel to appear at a 9 hearing and to be “prepared to address the hallucinated citations included in Petitioner’s briefs,” 10 Petitioner filed a notice of errata indicating he “mistakenly included” four cases in his reply brief, 11 and that the identified citations “do not appear in publicly available legal databases or were 12 incorrectly cited in the initial brief.” (Doc. Nos. 26; 28 at 1.) Petitioner maintained that the 13 “remainder of the brief and argument including citations remain accurate and are not impacted by 14 this correction.” (Id.) Finally, Petitioner indicated that “Petitioner’s counsel is in the process of 15 reviewing all filings in the matter to ensure continued accuracy and integrity of the record” and 16 “apologize[d] to the Court and opposing counsel for the inadvertent inclusion of those citations.” 17 (Id. at 2.) Petitioner has not filed any follow up to his notice of errata despite the notice of errata 18 failing to address all erroneous citations in his motion and reply. 19 On January 15, 2026, the court issued an order vacating the hearing date and indicating 20 that the court would address the erroneous citations by separate order. (Doc. No. 31.) 21 As detailed in the following chart, Petitioner’s motion to modify and enforce habeas relief 22 and reply thereto are replete with citations to cases that do not exist, or that do not stand for the 23 propositions asserted by Petitioner. 24 Location in Brief Case Cited in Motion and Error with Citation Quote/Position Asserted 25 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 26 decision, United States v. 27 Cited for the proposition: A Domenech, 63 F.4th 1078, 1083 constitutionally compliant bond (6th Cir. 2023), which pertains to 28 hearing requires that the 1 government bear the burden of sentencing in criminal drug cases. showing by clear and convincing The case is not relevant here. 2 evidence that continued detention • The case cited by Petitioner does 3 is justified by actual, not appear to exist. individualized evidence of danger 4 or flight risk.
5 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. 6 • The court found Garcia v. INS at 7 Cited for the proposition: Arrests 222 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2000), and dismissed charges cannot which is an immigration case but 8 establish dangerousness without pertains to notice of an reliable evidence. immigration hearing, not 9 consideration of dismissed 10 criminal charges.
11 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 12 365 (5th Cir. 1992), which Cited for the proposition: Arrests pertains to mail fraud. 13 and dismissed charges cannot • The court found Pastor- 14 establish dangerousness without Camarena v. Smith, 977 F. Supp. reliable evidence. 1415 (W.D. Wash. 1997), which 15 interprets an irrelevant section of Illegal Immigration Reform and 16 Immigrant Responsibility Act of 17 1996.
18 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 19 proposition. See Matter of Cited for the proposition: Arrests Guerra, 24 I. & N. at 40 (“In the 20 and dismissed charges cannot context of custody 21 establish dangerousness without redeterminations, Immigration reliable evidence. Judges are not limited to 22 considering only criminal convictions in assessing whether 23 an alien is a danger to the community. . . Therefore, 24 although we recognize that the 25 respondent has not been convicted of the offenses charged in the 26 criminal complaint, we find that unfavorable evidence of his 27 conduct, including evidence of criminal activity, is pertinent to 28 1 the Immigration Judge’s analysis regarding whether the respondent 2 poses a danger to the 3 community.”)
4 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. 5 even minimal periods of time • Actual quote: “The loss of First constitutes irreparable injury.”) Amendment freedoms, for even 6 minimal periods of time, 7 unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” 8 Doc. No. 24 at 2 Vuong v. Jennings, No. 20-cv- • Case name does not exist. N.D. 9 Line 19 03050 (N.D. Cal. 2020) Cal. Case No. 20-cv-03050
10 Cited for proposition: Denial of corresponds to Adobe Inc. v. access to medical treatment Cornerstone Information Systems, 11 constitutes irreparable harm. Inc., which does not pertain to denial of medical treatment. 12 Doc. No. 24 at 2 Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, 455 F. • Reporter/Pincite corresponds to 13 Line 20 Supp. 3d 1029, 1039–40 (N.D. Rocky Mountain Wild, Inc. v. Cal. 2020) (recognizing denial of 14 medical care as irreparable injury United States Bureau of Land warranting release). Mgmt., 455 F. Supp. 3d 1005 (D. 15 Colo. 2020), which does not pertain to medical care. 16 • Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, 465 F. 17 Supp. 3d 1028, pertains to immigration detention during 18 COVID and does not support the asserted proposition. 19 Doc. No. 24 at 2 Phan v. I.N.S., 56 F.3d 1393 (9th • No case exists with this reporter 20 Line 24 Cir. 1995) information, and no case found
21 Cited for the proposition: Habeas with this name. is still appropriate to challenge 22 the adequacy of a bond hearing.
23 Doc. No. 24 at 3 Arellano v. Wolf, No. 1:20-cv- • Incorrect case number and judges. 24 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
25 Cited for the proposition: In the Lopez v. City of Merced County et Eastern District, courts have al. 26 routinely granted habeas relief • Lopez pertains to a case of post-bond hearing where the mistaken identity and does not 27 process was constitutionally support Petitioner’s asserted deficient. 28 proposition. 1 • No case found with this name. Doc. No. 24 at 3 Calderon v. Barr, No. 1:20-cv- • Incorrect case number and judges. 2 Line 2 00796-NONE-EPG (E.D. Cal. • E.D. Cal. Case No. 1:20-cv- 2020) 3 00796-AWI-SKO corresponds to Cited for the proposition: In the Yellowcake, Inc. v. Platino 4 Eastern District, courts have Records, et al. routinely granted habeas relief • Yellowcake is an intellectual 5 post-bond hearing where the property dispute and does not 6 p d r e o fi c c e i s e s n t w . as constitutionally support Petitioner’s asserted proposition.
7 • No case found with this name. 8 These erroneous citations bear the hallmarks of hallucinated cases created by artificial 9 intelligence (“AI”) tools. See United States v. Hayes, 763 F. Supp. 3d 1054, 1065-66 (E.D. Cal. 10 2025) (noting that cases created by generative AI tools “look[] like a real case with a case name,” 11 including “a citation to the federal supplement,” “identification of a district court,” and “the year 12 for the decision,” but in actuality lead to cases that “do not address, refer to, or have anything to 13 do with” the issues raised in the motion); Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443, 454 14 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (finding that generative AI tools created case citations that had “correct names 15 and citations but d[id] not contain language quoted or support the propositions for which they 16 [we]re offered”). 17 Notably, Petitioner’s notice of errata identified only Vuong, Arellano, Calderon, and 18 Pham as erroneously cited, and did not provide any explanation for their erroneous inclusion in 19 Petitioner’s reply. (Doc. No. 28.) 20 Numerous courts, both within and outside of this circuit, have issued sanctions due to 21 counsel’s inclusion of erroneous and/or hallucinated citations bearing the hallmarks of AI 22 generative tools such as those listed above. See, e.g., Hayes, 763 F. Supp. 3d at 1073 (issuing 23 sanctions for inclusion of AI generated citations pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 180(e)); 24 Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., 348 F.R.D. 489, 499 (D. Wyo. 2025) (issuing sanctions for inclusion 25 of AI generated citations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11); Ezzy Credit, LLC v. 26 Prescription Techs., Inc., No. 8:24-cv-02436-SDM-AAS, 2025 WL 3067426, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Jul 27 8, 2025) (issuing sanctions for inclusion of AI generated citations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927). 28 Accordingly, the court will order Petitioner to show cause why sanctions or other appropriate 1 | disciplinary action should not issue under these circumstances. 2 In addition, as to the unauthorized appearance of law student Gina Herrera, the Local 3 | Rules mandate that only certified law students may appear in proceedings in front of a judge in 4 | this court. L.R. 181(d)(2)(B). To be certified, a law student must be eligible for certification, 5 || apply to the clerk for certification, and provide the written consent of their client on a consent 6 | form available from the clerk before appearing on that client’s behalf. L.R. 181. Ms. Herrera has 7 | not provided documentation showing she has satisfied these requirements. Additionally, the court 8 || notes that Petitioner’s counsel has already been made aware of Ms. Herrera’s unauthorized 9 | appearances in this court. See Chavez v. Becerra, No. 1:25-cv-cv-02058-KES-SAB, 2026 WL 10 | 91757, at 1 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Jan 13, 2026) (noting that Mr. Cummings and Ms. Herrera’s filings in 11 | that case “do not evidence compliance with E.D. Cal. Local Rule 181” and requiring that 12 | “Attorney Cummings [] document compliance with Local Rule 181 in any further filing listing 13 | Ms. Herrera.”’). 14 Accordingly, the court will also order Petitioner to show cause as to why sanctions should 15 | not issue due to Ms. Herrera’s unauthorized appearance in this case in violation of Local Rule 16 | 181. 17 For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by no later 18 | than February 20, 2026, as to why sanctions should not issue due to Petitioner’s use of erroneous 19 | case citations in his motion to enforce and modify habeas relief (Doc. No. 19) and reply thereto 20 | (Doc. No. 24), and due to law student Gina Herrera’s unauthorized appearance in this case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. : 23 | Dated: _February 9, 2026 DUG Dena Coggins 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28