What did the 2016 Katie Johnson court filings specifically allege and where can the full documents be read?
Executive summary
The 2016 court filings by a plaintiff using the name "Katie Johnson" accused Jeffrey Epstein and Donald J. Trump of sexually abusing her beginning when she was 13, and sought substantial damages; the federal complaint was filed in the Central District of California and was dismissed shortly after for failing to state a viable federal civil-rights claim [1][2]. Full copies of the pleadings and related documents are publicly available through multiple archival and court-docket sources, including CourtListener, archived copies on Archive.org and PlainSite, and reproduction uploads on document-hosting sites such as Scribd and the Epstein Archive project [2][1][3][4].
1. What the complaint specifically alleged
The April 2016 complaint filed under the name Katie Johnson alleges that she was held as a "sex slave" and that Epstein and Trump repeatedly sexually assaulted her over a multi-month stretch in 1994, beginning when she was 13, with the pleading describing escalating sexual assaults and naming both men as defendants [1][5]. The filing asserts residence facts (plaintiff in California, defendants in New York), sets venue in the Central District of California, and frames its factual allegations as criminal conduct described in a civil complaint, seeking monetary relief including a $100 million demand reported by contemporaneous coverage [1][6].
2. Procedural outcome and judicial reasoning reported
According to the docket entries, the complaint was filed in April 2016 and was assigned to Judge Dolly M. Gee; the court dismissed the filing within a short period because the claim did not present an actionable civil-rights cause under federal law—the dismissal turned on pleading grounds rather than evidentiary resolution of the underlying criminal allegations [2][1]. Reporting contemporaneous to later reviews notes that separate filings or later “Jane Doe” versions appeared and at least some were withdrawn or dismissed; one judge’s dismissal was characterized as finding the complaint “didn’t raise valid claims under federal law” [5][6].
3. Where the full documents can be read — primary sources
The federal docket entry for Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump, No. 5:16-cv-00797, is viewable on CourtListener, which lists the complaint and related docket activity including notices and attachments [2]. A full text transcription of the complaint was captured on Archive.org’s repository of the lawsuit documents and is accessible in the public archive there [1]. Additional downloadable copies of the complaint and court filing PDFs are available via PlainSite’s docket download and reproductions on Scribd, while the Epstein Archive project hosts an interview/deposition item and related material connected to the Johnson matter [7][3][4].
4. Questions about identity, credibility and reporting context
Multiple subsequent investigations and reporting have emphasized uncertainty over whether the named “Katie Johnson” is the person she claimed to be or whether she was a real, verifiable accuser; journalists and records researchers have noted that the origin of the filings and the person behind the name remained unclear, and some later materials and committee emails showed Epstein’s awareness of a California plaintiff but did not resolve identity questions [6]. Media summaries and fact-checks have pointed out that the lawsuit contained criminal allegations aired in a civil forum and that dismissal was procedural; different outlets have framed the story in different ways, sometimes amplifying the raw claims without the legal context [5][6].
5. How to approach these documents critically
Readers should distinguish what the complaint alleges—a plaintiff’s sworn factual claims in a civil filing—from adjudicated facts: the dismissal was based on a failure to plead a cognizable federal civil-rights claim rather than a determination on the truth of the underlying allegations, and public archival copies allow researchers to read the exact allegations and procedural filings to form an independent view [2][1]. Because identity and corroboration issues remain in reporting, anyone relying on these filings should consult the primary court documents linked above and consider contemporaneous investigative journalism and official records for additional corroboration [7][6].