What is the full case name and docket history for Case 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS?
Executive summary
Court records identify Case No. 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS as a federal complaint filed April 26, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California captioned Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump (et al.) (Document 1) and archived in multiple online repositories [1] [2]. Public docket pages and document repositories (CourtListener, Internet Archive, Law360, FactCheck.org copies) show the complaint and at least one related docket entry (Document 5 filed 04/26/16) but available sources do not provide a full, step-by-step electronic docket history inside a court PACER log in this dataset [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Case caption and parties — what the filings name
The complaint circulated online is titled Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump et al., and the electronic file label uses the district-court case number 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS; the complaint—filed April 26, 2016—names Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein among defendants in the publicly posted PDF/text versions [1] [2]. Multiple mirrors and repositories reproduce the complaint text, which is why the Katie Johnson caption and the 5:16-cv-00797 docket number appear consistently across CourtListener and archive sites [3] [2] [1].
2. Where the documents are hosted — mirrored evidence and provenance
Copies of the complaint and related docket PDFs have been archived at Internet Archive (which hosts a collection labeled “Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump child rape lawsuit | Case 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS”) and at other document-sharing sites; FactCheck.org’s CDN also contains a PDF copy of “Case 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS Document 1” [2] [1] [5]. CourtListener maintains docket landing pages for the case (including a parties page and an IDB entry) that reference the same case number and caption [3] [4] [7]. Law360 lists docket activity for the matter as well, indicating its tracking by legal reporters [6].
3. What the complaint alleges — content available in copies
The circulating complaint text includes detailed, graphic allegations involving the named defendants; archived text snippets show specific factual allegations attributed to the plaintiff in the complaint document [8] [1]. Because these are plaintiff allegations within a civil complaint, they are presented as the complaint’s claims; sources here are reproductions of that complaint rather than independent investigative reporting [1] [2].
4. Docket history available in these sources — limited entries and reproductions
The scraped and archived materials show Document 1 (the complaint) filed on 04/26/2016 and at least one other docket PDF labeled Document 5 filed the same date [1] [5]. CourtListener’s docket page exists for the case, but the provided CourtListener snippets in this dataset do not list a full chronological docket sheet in-line; they confirm the case entry and party metadata but do not substitute for a full PACER docket download here [3] [4] [7]. Law360 offers a docket-activity page for the case but the dataset does not include Law360’s detailed entries [6].
5. Gaps, limitations, and what is not shown in these sources
Available sources in this set do not include a complete PACER-style, time-stamped docket sheet showing every filing, order, or termination event; they instead provide mirrored complaint documents and docket landing pages [3] [2] [1] [5]. If you need the authoritative, court-stamped docket history (all filings, minute orders, case status, judge assignments over time), those are not fully reproduced in the supplied links and would normally be obtained via PACER or the Central District of California clerk’s office (not found in current reporting) [3] [4] [6].
6. Conflicting or corroborating public reproductions — multiple mirrors
Multiple third-party archives and document-hosting sites (Internet Archive, Yumpu, Scribd, CyberPlayground mirrors, PlainSite logs) reproduce the same complaint and label the case identically; that broad mirroring corroborates the existence of the April 26, 2016 filing and the case number but does not independently verify subsequent docket events beyond what those mirrors host [2] [9] [10] [11] [12]. Some reposts present editorial framing or summaries (e.g., DailyKos or Scribd descriptions); those are derivative and carry potential bias or sensational framing separate from the court-filed text [9] [13].
7. What to do next if you need the full, authoritative docket
To obtain an official, complete docket history (judge assignments, all entries, rulings, terminations, and docket text), request the PACER docket for 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS or contact the Central District of California clerk’s office; the current dataset does not contain that exhaustive PACER-style docket (available sources do not mention full PACER entries) [3] [4] [6]. The mirrored complaint PDFs and CourtListener landing pages give a reliable starting point for the case caption and initial filing [1] [2].
Summary: The record copies in these sources confirm the case caption Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump, case number 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS, and reproduce the April 26, 2016 complaint; they do not, within this dataset, provide a complete, authoritative PACER docket history of every filing or court action [1] [3] [2].