0. Source disclosure (required)
SYNTHETIC EXEMPLAR — constructed illustrative scenario, not a court-documented incident.
Underlying authorities (Lange, Wesby, and Ninth Circuit qualified-immunity opinions in this pattern class) may be real; the sandbox run, briefing context, and “Second Circuit adopted as binding” narrative are constructed. There is no incident date because this is not a filed-case record.
source_class: synthetic_exemplar
1. The teaching scenario (not a crime scene)
Eval scenario: a RAG pipeline drafting a § 1983 qualified-immunity section cites a Ninth Circuit opinion as if it were binding in the Second Circuit. The case may exist; the jurisdiction assignment is wrong. A citation-existence-only linter would miss it.
Common production failure pattern: correct case, wrong circuit, presented as controlling authority.
2. The Artifact (constructed LLM-style output)
"Qualified immunity analysis in the Second Circuit follows the framework set forth
in Lange v. California, 141 S. Ct. 2011 (2021), as applied in Johnson v. City of
Seattle, 994 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2021), which the Second Circuit adopted as
binding precedent for excessive-force claims at the motion-to-dismiss stage."
"See also District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48 (2018) (extending Ninth Circuit
notice pleading standards to Second Circuit § 1983 actions)."
3. The Evidence Breakdown (why this pattern matters)
Claimed Authority: Johnson v. City of Seattle, 994 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2021) — presented as Second Circuit binding law.
Check: Ninth Circuit authority is not binding in the Second Circuit merely because a model asserts “adoption.”
Claimed Authority: District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48 (2018).
Check: Wesby is real Supreme Court authority on probable cause / qualified immunity — it does not “extend Ninth Circuit notice pleading standards” to the Second Circuit as stated.
Pattern: Geographic / hierarchical jurisdiction collapse without fabrication of the case name itself.
4. Verification note (honest scope)
Pedagogical flag: circuit_mismatch — wrong-circuit authority presented as controlling. This is a seed teaching record in the Open Evidence Corpus, not a claim that a specific production filing occurred.