What is in the 2016 anonymous 'Katie Johnson' lawsuit and why was it dismissed?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The 2016 “Katie Johnson” complaints were anonymous civil suits filed in federal court alleging that Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein sexually assaulted a girl in 1994; the filings contained graphic claims that the plaintiff said began when she was 13 and sought large damages, but they were quickly dismissed or withdrawn and never litigated on the merits [1] [2] [3]. Federal judges ruled the pleadings failed to state actionable federal claims and the plaintiff’s attorneys later withdrew or voluntarily dismissed the suits amid safety concerns and a fraught pre‑election environment [4] [5] [6].
1. What the filings said: forceful, graphic allegations and large damages
The complaint filed under the pseudonym “Katie Johnson” alleged that, over a four‑month period in 1994, Epstein and Trump took turns sexually assaulting a 13‑year‑old girl at Epstein’s Manhattan residence and that she was effectively held as a “sex slave,” with vivid allegations including refusal to use protection and attempts to pay for an abortion; the filings sought substantial damages (reported as a $100 million claim in some accounts) and included graphic narratives that later circulated online [2] [3] [1].
2. Where the suits were filed and the use of a pseudonym
The initial action was filed in U.S. District Court in Riverside, California in April 2016 and later versions or related complaints appeared in federal courts including New York; the plaintiff proceeded under pseudonyms such as “Katie Johnson” and “Jane Doe,” which has made public verification difficult and left key biographical questions unresolved in contemporary reporting [4] [3] [7].
3. The short procedural life: dismissal for lack of a federal claim
A federal magistrate and judge recommended and then ordered dismissal, concluding the complaints “fail[ed] to state a civil rights claim” under the federal statutes the plaintiff had invoked (notably 18 U.S.C. §2241 and 42 U.S.C. §1985), meaning the pleadings alleged criminal conduct but did not plead a cognizable civil cause of action under the particular federal laws cited [4]. Multiple contemporaneous summaries described the dismissal as occurring on technical or jurisdictional grounds rather than as a judicial finding on the truth of the underlying allegations [7] [5].
4. Withdrawal, re‑filings and ultimate abandonment
After the California dismissal the plaintiff’s legal team refiled or contemplated refiling in New York, but the cases did not proceed to discovery or trial; attorneys subsequently withdrew the complaints or filed notices of voluntary dismissal in late 2016, with at least one public explanation pointing to threats and safety concerns faced by the plaintiff as a factor in abandoning a planned news conference and in withdrawing the litigation [5] [6] [8].
5. Public circulation, documentation, and subsequent scrutiny
Redacted court documents and copies of the complaints have repeatedly resurfaced online and in the media, fueling debate; fact‑checking outlets and news organizations have documented the content of the filings and the procedural history while noting that because the suits were dismissed or withdrawn they were never tested in court for truth, and that the documents have been used both to support broader allegations and to seed unverified rumors [2] [5] [3].
6. Why courts dismissed the case — legal form, not factual adjudication
The controlling reason for dismissal was legal, not evidentiary: judges found the complaint did not allege a proper statutory civil claim under the federal statutes invoked and therefore could not proceed in that forum; dismissal was entered without a determination on the factual allegations and with the record showing procedural defects and insufficient pleaded legal theory, after which the plaintiff chose not to pursue further litigation to force a factual resolution [4] [7].
7. Bottom line and limits of the public record
What exists in the public record are the contents of the anonymous complaints, the court docket showing dismissal for failure to state a federal civil claim, and contemporaneous reporting about threatened withdrawals; what does not exist in that record is a litigated finding verifying or disproving the allegations, because the suits were dismissed or voluntarily abandoned before evidentiary testing — a gap that has allowed the filings to be repeatedly recirculated and litigated in the court of public opinion rather than in court [4] [2] [5].