Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Much has been written about attorney use (and misuse) of generative AI, including by Indiana federal judges. Probably a more daunting issue is courts across the nation confronting a massive increase in pro se filings, many attributed to availability of generative AI. Indiana’s federal courts are experiencing this as well (as is this author with a rapidly increasing volume of such claims filed against clients in multiple sectors). Some studies show massive increases nationally in pro se filings since the proliferation of genAI.
History will inform the benefits of this technology in the justice system (e.g., increased access to court) and the burdens (near instantaneous, continual, repetitive and extremely long filings). In the present and near future, an overloaded federal bench is grappling with the increase in new lawsuits and filings in those lawsuits. A few examples illustrate this.
In Piper v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 2026 WL 2536619, at *4 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 27, 2026), Judge Tanya Walton Pratt addressed genAI in a pro se motion, writing: “The Court now turns to Piper’s suspected use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”). Piper’s Motion for Reconsideration contains incorrect case names (e.g., citing “Kowalski v. Bolsinger,” instead of “Boliker”), cases that do not support the proposition for which they are cited (e.g., In re Lodholtz, 769 F.3d 531; Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm, 457 U.S. 423), and cases that do not appear to exist (e.g., Hernandez v. Shaughnessy, 453 F.3d 772, 776 (7th Cir. 2006); Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. v. Crow Island Assocs., LLC, 146 F.3d 1024, 1027 (7th Cir. 1998); and Perez v. Thornton, 515 F.3d 606, 613 (6th Cir. 2008)). The Motion for Reconsideration also contains language like, “[ADD IF AVAILABLE … [CITE CASES] …]”; “**KEY IMPROVEMENTS MADE:**”; a checklist of “**COMPLETED:** items; and “**READY TO FILE**—All essential information is now complete. Marissa can file this immediately. Does this stronger version work? Any sections you want me to adjust or expand further?” (Dkt. 17 at 4, 10– 11). These errors, misstatements, and unusual language lead to the unavoidable conclusion that Piper used generative AI in preparing her Motion for Reconsideration.”
Judge Pratt then commented: “While the use of AI is not prohibited in this Court, “[a]ccuracy and honesty matter,” and pro se litigants “must read their filings and take reasonable care to avoid misrepresentations, factual and legal.” Jones v. Kankakee Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 164 F.4th 967, 970 (7th Cir. 2026). The Court will not “allow a court filing to include misrepresentations on legal or factual points that an unrepresented party reasonably knows or should know exist.” Id. at 971. Piper is therefore admonished that she must carefully review all of her filings before submitting them to the Court and take reasonable care to avoid making misrepresentations in those filings. Failure to do so may result in sanctions, including monetary sanctions, having filings stricken, and/or dismissal.”
In Quadros v. Trustees, 4:26-cv-00088 (N.D. Ind. Sep. 22, 2026), Judge Gretchen S. Lund denied a pro se plaintiff’s motion to file a 405-page complaint comprising 850 numbered paragraphs, a 525-page appendix comprising 935 numbered paragraphs, and a series of exhibits encompassing 972 pages. She first explained: “Although Plaintiff’s motion technically seeks permission to exceed the expected page limit, there is no set page limit for complaints under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the local rules for this district. Thus, the more appropriate inquiry is whether Plaintiff’s pleadings are compliant with the federal rules. Dismissal of a complaint for noncompliance with Rules 8 and 10(b) is discretionary, and is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Davis v. Anderson, 718 F. App’x 420, 423 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 796–97 (7th Cir. 2011); Frederiksen v. City of Lockport, 384 F.3d 437, 439 (7th Cir. 2004)).”
Turning to Rule 8, she then wrote: “Where a complaint is unduly long or is unintelligible, it may be subject to dismissal under these rules. See Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843, 844 (7th Cir. 2013).” She continued: “Here, Plaintiff’s pleadings suffer from both defects. In particular, although Plaintiff numbers his paragraphs and attempts to paint a roadmap for what the complaint will contain with a table of contents, those methods prove ultimately futile as the table of contents lacks any page numbers and the paragraphs are numbered in an increasingly complex and convoluted manner. At the beginning of the complaint, Plaintiff quickly veers off from point to point in a seventy-seven-page preliminary section without a clear indication of what the final destination will be. Plaintiff discusses potential defenses that each of the defendants could, but have not yet, raised. Plaintiff also points to facts he intends to plead, but also confusingly highlights what he is not pleading. Then, after laying out a relatively short set of factual allegations at around twenty pages, Plaintiff proceeds to detail, in a staggering 300 pages, a series of counts replete with a multitude of facts spanning over two years, alternative pleadings in almost every count, and what appears to be case law arguments. To summarize, the complaint “does not tell an intelligent story that can be followed without herculean effort, but instead ‘is prolix, disjointed, confusing, and at times unintelligible.’” See Davis v. Ala. Dep’t of Hum. Res. of Limestone Cnty., Ala., 2017 WL 930649, at *5 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 9, 2017) (quoting Jennings, 910 F.2d at 1435).”
New magistrate judge vacancy: With Magistrate Judge Tim Baker announcing his retirement effective August 2027, the Southern District of Indiana has posted an application for that upcoming vacancy. Applications are due by Nov. 23, with information at insd.uscourts.gov/employment-opportunities.
Judge Baker has served with distinction in this important role since his appointment in 2001, with reappointments in 2009, 2017 and 2025. Like so many of our Indiana federal judges, he has been extraordinarily active not just in case work but in the profession and community. Judge Baker has held numerous leadership positions in the judiciary and in the bar. In December 2023, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. appointed Judge Baker to a two-year term as the magistrate judge observer to the Judicial Conference of the United States. Judge Baker has also served on Federal Judicial Center Board of Directors, Magistrate Judge Education Committee, Indiana State Bar Association Board of Governors (including Secretary in 2026) and Indianapolis Bar Association Board of Managers.
He is a life fellow of the Indiana Bar Foundation, a distinguished fellow of the Indianapolis Bar Foundation and two-time winner of the IBA’s Dr. John Morton Finney, Jr. Award for Excellence in Legal Education. In 2022, he received the Founders Award from the Federal Magistrate Judges Association. His participation in the Reentry and Community Help program has helped numerous individuals successfully reenter society following incarceration.
During his 25 years of service, he has held countless conferences, hearings, settlement conferences and trials. A quick search on Westlaw today reveals almost 1,200 judicial opinions authored by him addressing all types of procedural and substantive issues. This column cannot do justice to that body of important jurisprudence, but federal practitioners frequently cite his opinions and will do so for years to come.
Save the date/register now: I’ll be leading the annual Federal Civil Practice seminar from 1:30 p.m.-4:45 p.m. on
Dec. 18, featuring federal judges and practitioners. Register for in-person or virtual attendance at www.josephmaley.org at events.•
__________
Maley is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg LLP. You can contact him at [email protected].
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.