A federal judge issued a sharp rebuke this week to a self-represented plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Bainbridge Island School District, warning that the use of artificial intelligence does not relieve parties of the obligation to adhere to court procedures.
The ruling comes as the district faces concurrent legal challenges, including a separate high-profile federal civil rights suit alleging that administrators failed to address a pervasive culture of abuse.
The current case, initiated on March 10, 2026, was brought by a former para-educator who is seeking approximately $5 million in damages. The suit names the school district, Superintendent Amii Thompson, Special Education Director Annalisa Sanchez, and several members of the school board as defendants.
The plaintiff argues that his termination in December 2025 was a pretext for retaliation after he voiced concerns regarding student safety and policy compliance. The district maintains that the dismissal was based on performance deficiencies, specifically citing instances of wandering, leaving a student without supervision, and using a personal mobile device during instructional periods. The plaintiff disputes these assertions.
Motion Denied
On April 28, U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle rejected the plaintiff’s request to supplement the record and consider additional evidence. In his order, the judge criticized the plaintiff for procedural errors, including the submission of two memoranda intended for motions to dismiss that had not yet been filed, as well as exhibits that were not linked to any active motion.
Judge Settle noted that the court does not scan the docket for documents unrelated to pending matters.
This decision follows a memorandum filed on April 1, in which the plaintiff formally disclosed the use of artificial intelligence-assisted software to format, organize, research, and draft all sections of his legal filings.
In addressing the plaintiff’s status as a self-represented litigant, Judge Settle outlined the court’s standards. While acknowledging that pro se litigants are generally held to a lower standard than licensed attorneys and that complaints are typically judged by function rather than form, the judge established a distinct boundary for motion practice.
The order stated that the principle of liberal construction does not extend to a self-represented litigant’s own motions, nor does it exempt such plaintiffs from the rules of civil procedure.
Directly referencing the technology disclosure, the judge cautioned that reliance on artificial intelligence does not excuse compliance with the rules and court orders.
Judge Settle clarified that the plaintiff may introduce evidence with proper foundation at trial, consistent with the Federal Rules of Evidence. The judge concluded by warning that filing exhibits and evidence on the docket without a connection to a pending motion is improper and unproductive, and that future filings of this nature may be stricken.