What legal reasons did plaintiffs give when the 2016 Jane Doe/Katie Johnson lawsuits were dismissed or withdrawn?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Jane Doe/Katie Johnson matters filed in 2016 were repeatedly dismissed or voluntarily withdrawn for a mix of procedural and practical reasons: a court ruled one complaint failed to state valid federal claims, several filings were voluntarily dismissed or withdrawn shortly after filing, and at least one plaintiff’s attorney said threats and fear motivated a withdrawal, while defenders insist dismissal did not equal falsity [1] [2] [3]. Reporting also documents anonymous affidavit use and questions about the case’s credibility, leaving the allegations legally untested in court [3].
1. Court dismissal for failure to plead a valid federal claim
One explicit legal ground reported was a judicial dismissal in May 2016 that the court judged the complaint did not raise valid federal causes of action, a procedural ruling that ended one incarnation of the case before it could proceed on the merits [1]. That judicial dismissal was tied to the federal complaint’s inability to establish the necessary elements under federal law, meaning the judge declined to let that version of the case move forward irrespective of the underlying allegations [1].
2. Repeated voluntary dismissals and withdrawals by plaintiffs’ counsel
Beyond the judge’s dismissal, multiple filings were voluntarily dismissed or withdrawn by the plaintiff or her counsel: versions of the suit filed in June and again in September 2016 were reportedly withdrawn or voluntarily dismissed in November 2016, leaving no active case after those closures [3] [2]. Court records and contemporaneous reporting describe the November 4, 2016, voluntary dismissal as the plaintiff’s attorney filing a notice to dismiss, effectively terminating that pleading from the docket [2].
3. Fear, threats, and practical safety concerns cited by counsel
Plaintiff-side lawyers publicly linked the withdrawal to safety concerns: one of the attorneys said the woman had received threats and was “too afraid to show up,” and that fear was cited as the proximate reason the attorney filed the notice to dismiss in November 2016 [1]. That explanation frames the legal withdrawal as driven by real-world intimidation and client safety, rather than—or in addition to—strictly doctrinal litigation strategy [1].
4. Questions about evidence, anonymity and credibility that shaped decisions
Reporting highlights the procedural posture of the suits—use of anonymous plaintiffs and pseudonymous witnesses, reliance on affidavits from people using pseudonyms, and media reports that raised concerns about coordination and commercialization of allegations—which created credibility and evidentiary questions that never were resolved in court because the claims were dismissed or withdrawn [3] [2]. Those factors, including an alleged attempt to sell footage, were raised in contemporaneous coverage and likely influenced both counsel decisions and public perceptions of the lawsuits [2].
5. Plaintiffs’ and advocates’ counterpoints: dismissal is not proof of falsity
Plaintiff advocates and one attorney maintain that dismissal or withdrawal did not mean the allegations were false, with some lawyers publicly asserting belief in the plaintiff’s account and emphasizing that the allegations were never adjudicated on the merits [4] [3]. Reporting records that defenders caution against equating procedural dismissal with a factual finding, underscoring the difference between legal viability in federal court and the underlying truth or falsity of contested allegations [3] [4].
6. Limits of the public record and what remains unknown
Available reporting makes clear the public record ends with procedural dispositions—dismissal for failure to state federal claims, voluntary withdrawals, and public statements about threats—but does not contain a court adjudication on the factual merits nor a detailed docket entry attributing every withdrawal to a single strategic legal ground, leaving open which combination of legal defects, safety concerns, evidentiary weaknesses, and public-relations considerations most directly prompted each dismissal or withdrawal [1] [2] [3].