Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Are there related appeals, settlements, or subsequent litigation tied to Case 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS?
Executive summary
Available records show a civil complaint filed in the Central District of California on April 26, 2016 under Case No. 5:16‑cv‑00797‑DMG‑KS (variously titled Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump or Jane Doe v. Trump), and multiple copies of the complaint and docket entries are available in online repositories (court docket copies and PDFs) [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not provide a clear, contemporaneous public docket history showing final adjudication, settlement terms, appeals, or downstream litigation tied explicitly to this docket number; reporting and scattered archives indicate the filing existed and that at least some outlets later reported the complaint was dropped [4] [5].
1. What the original filing shows — explicit allegations and defendants
The complaint that was filed as Case 5:16‑cv‑00797‑DMG‑KS contains explicit, graphic allegations naming Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein and describing alleged sexual assaults and threats; full-text copies of the complaint are available in multiple online archives and document repositories [4] [3] [1]. These hosted PDFs and transcriptions include paragraphs describing alleged forced sexual acts and threats to the plaintiff and her family [4].
2. Where the filing and docket appear online
CourtListener maintains a docket entry for Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump with case number 5:16‑cv‑00797 and related metadata (referred to magistrate Karen L. Stevenson) [2] [6]. The complaint and several document images are mirrored on Archive.org and other sites [7] [8] [4], and fact‑checking or repository sites have preserved the complaint PDF [3]. Multiple secondary sites (Yumpu, Scribd, PDF aggregators) also host copies of the filing [9] [10] [11].
3. What the reporting says about dismissal or dropping the case
At least one tabloid outlet reported the alleged plaintiff “dropped” the case by November 2016, though the DailyMail piece is a secondary report and does not display formal court closure documents within the sources provided [5]. The primary court dockets and legal‑database listings included above do not, in the provided material, show a clerk’s final judgment, dismissal order, settlement filing, or appeal notice explicitly tied to this case number [2] [6]. Therefore, available sources do not confirm procedural disposition beyond noting the initial filing.
4. Evidence for appeals, settlements, or subsequent litigation
Search results and archived files show numerous mirrors of the original complaint and related PDFs, but they do not produce a clear, cited record of a settlement agreement, a final judgment, or an appeal docket entry arising from Case 5:16‑cv‑00797‑DMG‑KS in the supplied material [2] [3] [7]. Some aggregator pages and blog posts state that the case was “refiled as Doe v. …” or allude to later filings, but those claims in the provided pages are not accompanied by official appellate dockets or documented settlements in the search set [12]. Accordingly: available sources do not mention a confirmed settlement or subsequent appeal tied to this specific case number.
5. Why public confusion persists — preservation, mirrors, and anonymous filings
This case’s documents were widely mirrored across non‑official hosts (DailyKos, Yumpu, Scribd, Archive.org), creating multiple copies that can be cited without linking to an authoritative case disposition [9] [4] [10]. Some mirrors label the plaintiff alternately as “Katie Johnson” or “Jane Doe,” and various sites republish the complaint text without docket updates, which fuels inconsistent public reporting about whether the suit proceeded, was dismissed, or produced appeals [1] [10].
6. Competing perspectives and journalistic caution
Legal‑database listings (CourtListener) confirm the filing’s docket number and existence, which supports the filing’s authenticity as a submitted complaint [2]. Tabloid coverage saying the plaintiff “dropped” the case provides one narrative but lacks court documents in the supplied sources to verify dismissal terms or later appeals [5]. Some secondary sources and blogs repost the complaint and suggest refilings or later litigation but do not link to appellate dockets or settlements in the provided set [12]. Readers should treat mirrors and tabloid claims with caution and rely on official court dockets or published orders for definitive procedural outcomes.
7. What to check next if you want a conclusive procedural history
To establish whether there were appeals, settlements, or related litigation tied to this exact case number, consult the official Central District of California electronic docket (PACER) or request the district clerk’s file for 5:16‑cv‑00797‑DMG‑KS; the online mirrors and secondary reports in the provided sources document the complaint but do not show final disposition or appeal records [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention a PACER printout, final judgment, or appellate case number for this docket in the material you provided.
Sources cited above: CourtListener docket and FJC entry [2] [6], archived complaint PDFs and transcriptions [4] [3] [7], mirrors and reposts [9] [1] [10], and press reporting [5].