What court handled Case 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS and what is its docket history?

1. What court handled the case

The lawsuit uses the federal case number format 5:16‑cv‑00797‑DMG‑KS and identifies venue as the Central District of California, Eastern Division — i.e., the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California handled the matter ^[1]. Court records and docket listings for “Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump” appear on CourtListener under that Central District docket number ^{[2] [5]}.

2. The complaint and its public availability

The original complaint (Document 1) was filed April 26, 2016; multiple repositories have copies of that pleading, including a full-text transcription on Archive.org and an uploaded PDF used by fact‑checkers and document hosts ^{[1] [4] [3]}. These documents include venue and party allegations and graphic allegations against named defendants, and have circulated widely online via mirror sites such as Yumpu, Scribd and other archives ^{[6] [7] [8]}.

3. Docket sources and what they show

CourtListener maintains a docket page for the case and lists case metadata and party information; its pages for the docket, parties and FJC IDB entry reflect the Central District referral and list a judicial referral to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson in metadata summaries ^{[2] [9] [5]}. Law360 also maintains a docket activity page for the same case number, indicating commercial legal‑news tracking of docket events ^[10].

4. What the docket history in these sources includes — and what’s missing

Available public sources provided in the search results chiefly surface the initial complaint (Document 1) and at least one short docket PDF (Document 5) with file dates in April 2016; CourtListener’s docket page lists entries and parties but the cached snippets do not present a full, itemized chronology in the search results supplied here ^{[3] [2]}. In short: the repositories demonstrate filing of the complaint and related early docket items, but a complete sequential docket sheet (motions, orders, case termination or disposition) is not fully reproduced in the provided snippets ^{[1] [4]}.

5. Conflicting or corroborating reporting

Multiple independent mirrors (Archive.org, Yumpu, Scribd, FactCheck.org’s uploaded PDF) reproduce the same complaint text, corroborating the filing date and venue details ^{[1] [4] [3]}. CourtListener’s docket and party pages corroborate the case number, parties and Central District handling; Law360’s docket listing corroborates that professional legal trackers recorded docket activity ^{[2] [9] [10]}. These are consistent across sources provided.

6. Limitations and gaps in available reporting

The materials returned by the supplied searches focus on the complaint and initial docket artifacts; they do not, in the excerpts provided, show a full, authoritative docket history listing every entry, any dispositive rulings, transfers, dismissals, or appeals. The exact later procedural history (for example, whether the case was dismissed, settled, transferred, or litigated to judgment) is not found in the current reporting supplied here — available sources do not mention a final disposition or later docket entries in the snippets provided ^{[2] [5] [3]}.

7. How to confirm the complete docket history

To obtain a definitive, itemized docket history you should consult the official PACER/EDGAR system for the Central District of California or CourtListener’s full docket page (which may require following links on the CourtListener record to see all entries), or Law360’s commercial docket feed if you have access; the search results indicate those repositories hold the records but the excerpts here are incomplete ^{[2] [10]}. The uploaded PDF and Archive.org links verify document content but do not substitute for a complete official docket sheet ^{[4] [3]}.

If you want, I can (A) pull the full CourtListener docket entries and list the chronological docket history from that page, or (B) outline next steps to retrieve the PACER docket and fees involved. Which would you prefer?