(Grant M. Saxena v. Jezrael Martinez-Hernandez, et al., No. 22-2126, D. Nev., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92678)
(Opinion available. Document #46-250604-037R.)
The judge issued the order on May 14. In opposing reconsideration one day earlier, one of the defendants noted the difficulties in confronting AI-generated filings: “This inequity in effort being created through the use of generative AI is becoming a recognized issue, and a recognized problem. For a few well-placed computer clicks on Plaintiff’s part, both this Court and these other litigants are forced to scour the record for inaccuracies, and forced to argue with the synthetic mind of a computer which lacks a conscience, or any sense of right and wrong.”
Pro se plaintiff Grant Saxena sued Jezrael Martinez-Hernandez, Jason J. Heaney, David Boruchowitz and the Nye County Sheriff Office for allegedly violating his civil rights. U.S. Judge Cristina D. Silva of the District of Nevada concluded that Saxena likely enlisted AI to help write a brief and inadvertently included fake case cites as a result and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
Dismissed
Saxena moved for reconsideration.
On April 23, Judge Silva rejected Saxena’s contention that the court improperly frowned upon his use of AI. Saxena claims he turned to AI for assistance as he is a pro se disabled veteran and should not be punished for its use. But Judge Silva said neither Saxena’s status nor his use of AI excuses filing court documents with inaccurate or improper cites.
“I may have been willing to merely warn Saxena for this transgression if it had been the only issue caused by Saxena throughout this litigation. But Saxena’s use of AI generated cases — and his subsequent refusal to accept responsibility for doing so — is just another example of Saxena’s abusive litigation tactics, and further explains why the court issued case-terminating sanctions,” Judge Silva said.
‘End The Party’
Saxena filed a renewed motion for reconsideration on May 12. Saxena asked the court to reconsider dismissal of the case with prejudice, among other rulings. Defendant Boruchowitz opposed. In that May 13 opposition, he said, “Bluntly stated, the case is over; unfortunately, Plaintiff continues to file serial, frivolous and harassing motions.” Boruchowitz said the second motion for reconsideration “smacks of unedited AI.” Boruchowitz compared the AI-generated filing unfavorably to spam email. Spam email at least can simply be deleted. Parties must respond to AI-generated spam court filings. “And the end result is that these Defendants must again waste hours responding to such computer-generated prattle. Defendants invite the District Court to end the party,” Boruchowitz said.
Judge Silva then denied the motion and ordered that no additional documents be filed in the case’s docket.
More AI
Reconsideration requires more than simple disagreement with the challenged ruling, Judge Silva said. Yet disagreement is the only argument Saxena offers, Judge Silva said.
“I also note that there is once again evidence that Saxena’s filing was made using generative artificial intelligence. The opening line of his motion reads ‘Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b), Plaintiff, Dr. [Your Full Name], respectfully moves this Court to reconsider its orders denying recusal, sanctions, dismissal of the case with prejudice,” Judge Silva said. “As already explained in my prior orders, Saxena’s apparent penchant for using artificial intelligence to make up cases and case quotations is unacceptable,” Judge Silva said.
Saxena shows no remorse for the fake cites he submitted, Judge Silva said. Instead he has argued that the cases exist and that he simply provided imperfect citations without offering any proof, Judge Silva said.
Counsel
Boruchowitz is represented by Brent L. Ryman and Paul M. Bertone of Erickson, Thorpe & Swainston LTD in Reno, Nev.
(Additional documents available: Saxena’s objection. Document #46-250604-035B. Boruchowitz’s response. Document #46-250604-036B. Opinion on reconsideration. Document #46-250507-080R.)