What public documents exist from the 2016 Katie Johnson / Jane Doe filings and where can they be accessed?
Executive summary
Public court records show at least one April 2016 federal complaint filed under the name "Katie Johnson" in the Central District of California and related docket entries noting a complaint, in forma pauperis request, summonses and a short-lived case termination; near‑identical suits using the pseudonym "Jane Doe" were later filed in New York and uploaded copies of declarations and pleadings have circulated on archive sites and document repositories [1] [2] [3] [4]. Major repositories where those documents can be read include CourtListener’s docket for 5:16‑cv‑00797, archived text copies on Archive.org, a Plainsite download link for the complaint, and third‑party uploads such as Scribd — but reporters and fact‑checkers note unresolved questions about the plaintiff’s identity and the legal fate of the filings [1] [5] [2] [3] [6] [7].
1. The core 2016 filings and docket entries: what exists in the official record
The Central District of California docket shows a complaint filed under the name Katie Johnson (Case 5:16‑cv‑00797), a Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and related filings, a summons and a court entry marking the case terminated in early May 2016 — all captured in the public docket available via CourtListener and RECAP feeds [1]. That docket entry is the official trail that confirms a complaint was filed and then quickly ended in that court; CourtListener’s page reproduces the clerk’s entries including the complaint attachment listing [1].
2. Copies of pleadings and their online traces
Full‑text scans and transcriptions of the complaint and related pages — including graphic allegations attributed to "Katie Johnson" — have been preserved and redistributed on archive sites, notably Archive.org where a DJVU/text transcription of a complaint alleging abuse appears [2] [4]. Plainsite offered a direct download link to "Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump et al Document 1" that mirrors the same pleading text [5]. A separate "Jane Doe" declaration filed in a New York case is available in PDF form on Scribd and has been widely shared [3].
3. New York filings and successive versions described in reporting
Reporting and fact‑checks describe at least two refilings or similar complaints in New York federal court later in 2016 under the pseudonym Jane Doe; those filings and declarations (filed June/September 2016 in press accounts) are discussed and replicated in secondary repositories and news accounts, though the authoritative New York docket items are best confirmed via that court’s PACER or CourtListener records where available [8] [6] [9].
4. Independent verification and fact‑checking of the documents
Fact‑checkers and investigative outlets have analyzed these documents and the surrounding publicity: Snopes and other reporters trace the documents’ origins, confirm they are part of civil complaints alleging 1994 abuse, and emphasize that the filings were dismissed or withdrawn and that identity and evidentiary questions remain [6] [10]. The San Francisco Chronicle’s later reporting underscores ongoing uncertainty about whether "Katie Johnson" was a real, reachable person and notes outreach attempts and conflicting signals in 2016 [7].
5. Where to access the documents now — practical guide
Primary sources for the public documents are: the CourtListener docket for the Central District case (5:16‑cv‑00797) which lists the complaint and docket events (accessible online) [1]; Archive.org’s DJVU/text transcriptions that host the complaint text and related Epstein‑file materials [2] [4]; Plainsite’s download for the complaint [5]; and Scribd where a "Jane Doe" declaration PDF has been posted [3]. For definitive, court‑certified copies, the original filings should be obtained from the relevant federal court clerks’ offices or PACER, as public archival sites reproduce copies but are not substitutes for PACER records [1] [2].
6. Caveats, contested points and why access matters
While copies have circulated widely, the legal outcome (dismissal/withdrawal) and questions about the plaintiff’s identity mean the documents must be read in context: journalists and fact‑checkers caution that the pleadings are allegations in civil suits that were short‑lived, and social‑media recirculation has sometimes stripped that context [1] [6] [10]. Readers seeking the authoritative docket history should consult CourtListener/RECAP or PACER and, for scanned content, Archive.org and third‑party repositories cited above — while treating sensational excerpts with care given unresolved identity and procedural issues flagged by reporters [1] [2] [7].