Did subsequent litigation or related cases cite Case 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS as precedent or involve the same parties/issues?
Executive summary
The filing styled Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump, Case No. 5:16‑cv‑00797‑DMG‑KS, is a 2016 civil complaint alleging sexual abuse that appears in multiple public archives and docket listings [1] [2] [3]. Within the set of documents and reporting provided, there is no clear evidence that subsequent litigation cited this filing as precedent or that later cases formally involved the same parties and issues — but the available sources do not provide a full litigation history or universal citation search, so that absence in the record must be interpreted cautiously [3] [4] [5].
1. Background: what the case filing was and where it lives
The complaint filed April 26, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California is preserved in several repositories and mirror sites, including a PDF of the court filing and text transcriptions that allege serious sexual abuses by defendants identified as Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein [1] [2] [6]. CourtListener maintains a docket entry for Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump, 5:16‑cv‑00797, confirming the case number and filing exists in federal court records [3] [4]. Multiple archive mirrors and third‑party aggregators reproduce the complaint text, some with sensational framing that circulated widely online [6] [7].
2. What the public docket and documents actually show about further proceedings
The docket snapshots and archived document sets in the provided reporting show the original complaint and at least a related docket entry but do not present a transcript of a full adjudication, appellate opinion, or a published order that would create controlling precedent [3] [5] [8]. Some secondary sources note the case was initially filed under the plaintiff name Johnson and was later refiled in altered form as a Doe action according to reproductions, but the reporting does not include final judgments or recorded appellate activity tied to the file number provided [9] [5]. There are references sprinkled across blogs and document repositories, but those do not substitute for a court opinion or reported decision [10] [11].
3. Subsequent litigation and citation: evidence (or lack of it) in the provided record
A search through the supplied sources yields no explicit instance where a later federal or state opinion cites Case No. 5:16‑cv‑00797‑DMG‑KS as precedent, nor do the archives supplied include pleadings from other matters invoking the 2016 filing as controlling authority [3] [4]. The available docket listings and mirrored PDFs show the complaint itself but do not surface subsequent published rulings, orders, or appellate decisions tied to this case number that would generate citable precedent [5] [8]. That absence in these sources is the central factual basis for answering whether later litigation cited or relied on the case: within this corpus, there is no documented chain of later cases treating it as precedent [3] [4].
4. Alternative explanations and reporting caveats
It is possible — and plausible — that activity related to the dispute proceeded in ways not captured by the selected archives: settlements, voluntary dismissals, sealed dockets, refilings under different case numbers, or local filings that do not produce published opinions would not create public citations yet could resolve issues between parties [9] [5]. The provided sources include many third‑party reproductions and sensational repostings, which suggests public interest and circulation but does not equal judicial authority; therefore, the absence of citation in this sample cannot categorically prove the case was never referenced elsewhere beyond these sources [6] [7].
5. Why the distinction matters
A raw complaint—even one that gains media attention—does not establish precedent; only a judicial opinion or final order that is cited subsequently can operate as legal authority, so the critical metric is whether courts produced and later relied upon any rulings in this docket [3] [5]. Based on the documentation provided, no such published ruling or subsequent citation trail appears, meaning that as far as these records show, the 5:16‑cv‑00797 filing did not become a source of precedent or a recurring anchor in later litigation involving the same parties or legal issues [3] [4]. However, the record here is incomplete for fully exhaustive citation analysis, and more comprehensive legal‑database research would be required to definitively rule out all later references.