Duve v. Forrest et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
SUSAN ELIZABETH DUVE,
Plaintiff.
V.
WILLIAM CHARLES FORREST, et
al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-cv-00158
ORDER
On June 15, 2026, Plaintiff Susan Duve purported to remove two state-court
proceedings into this case. On June 18, 2026, Judge Jeffrey V. Brown dismissed
Plaintiff’s notice of removal as frivolous. In doing so, Judge Brown expressed
concern that Plaintiff “relied on generative artificial intelligence in crafting her
notice of removal, and that such use has needlessly interfered with this court’s
workload and unnecessarily disrupted state-court proceedings.” Dkt. 48 at 2.
Judge Brown ordered Plaintiff “to file a letter, addressed to [me], . . . addressing:
(1) what Fifth Circuit authority the plaintiff is referencing in her notice of removal;
and (2) whether the plaintiff used generative artificial intelligence to prepare her
notice of removal.” Id. at 3. Judge Brown instructed me “to take whatever action
he believes necessary to preserve the integrity of this court’s operations.” Id.
On June 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed the required letter confirming that no Fifth
Circuit authority exists to support the statements made in her notice of removal,
and that she “used generative artificial intelligence as a research and drafting aid
while preparing the Notice of Removal.” Dkt. 49 at 1. Plaintiff acknowledges that
she “did not independently verify every legal citation, quotation, and proposition
of law generated during that process.” Id. Plaintiff also affirms that she recognizes
that, as a pro se litigant, she has an obligation to independently verify legal
authorities and quotations before presenting them to this court. See id. at 2.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 30, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:26-cv-00158 Document 50 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
Plaintiff’s failure to verify legal authorities, quotations, and propositions of
law before filing her notice of removal was a serious misstep. It caused unnecessary
work for this court and disrupted state-court proceedings. But Plaintiff’s response
to that misstep reflects candor and professionalism. Considering Plaintiff’s pro se
status, her candor, and her assurance that she understands her obligations going
forward, no additional corrective action is warranted.
I recognize the benefits of GenAI to the legal profession and to pro se
litigants. But GenAI is only a tool, and tools must be used with care. Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) provides that, by presenting a paper to the court, an
“attorney or unrepresented party” certifies that “the claims, defenses, and other
legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for
extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” By
now, it is well known that GenAI can generate nonexistent cases, inaccurate
quotations, and unsupported propositions of law. Every filer must check their
work. That responsibility is especially clear for licensed attorneys, who are officers
of the court, trained in legal research, and subject to professional obligations
beyond those imposed by Rule 11. A licensed attorney who fails to verify GenAI
content should not expect the same leniency extended here to a pro se litigant who
promptly acknowledged her error and accepted responsibility.
Plaintiff is warned: such leniency will not be extended again. Any future
filing containing fabricated, misquoted, or unsupported legal authority will result
in sanctions, such as striking the filing or awarding attorneys’ fees to a party forced
to respond to such a filing. The court is confident, based on Plaintiff’s letter, that
Plaintiff understands this warning and that her future use of GenAI will not
unnecessarily increase this court’s workload.
SIGNED this 	day of June 2026.
______________________________
ANDREW M. EDISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00158 Document 50 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2