Case 516-cv-00797-DMG-KS final
Executive summary
Court records show a civil complaint filed in the Central District of California as Case No. 5:16‑cv‑00797‑DMG‑KS on April 26, 2016, captioned Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein; the complaint alleges graphic sexual assault and coercion by the named defendants [1] [2]. Multiple archives and repostings of the four‑to‑six page complaint are available online, including scans at Internet Archive and other document hosts [3] [2] [4].
1. What the docket and complaint actually are
The filing identified as Document 1 in Case 5:16‑cv‑00797‑DMG‑KS is a short civil complaint submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 26, 2016; scanned copies of that pleading have been reposted by outlets and in document repositories such as Radar/Internet Archive and Yumpu [1] [3] [5]. CourtListener’s docket entry for Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump corroborates the existence of the docket listing and shows the case number and judge referral information as maintained in its database [6] [7].
2. What the complaint alleges — direct excerpts from the record
The public complaint contains explicit, graphic allegations by a plaintiff identified as Katie Johnson that describe multiple incidents of sexual assault and coercion involving Jeffrey Epstein and Donald J. Trump, including forced oral sex and forced touching of genitalia, and alleged threats to silence the plaintiff [2]. The complaint’s text describing venue, parties, and numbered allegations appears verbatim in the archived text versions and document scans [2] [3].
3. Availability, provenance and multiple repostings
The complaint document is circulated on several third‑party sites: Internet Archive hosts the lawsuit documents and a text conversion [3] [2], Yumpu hosts a scanned version of the six‑page filing [5] [8], and additional mirror links and blog reposts point back to the same filing [9] [10]. Plainsite and CourtListener provide docket metadata and downloads or links to the underlying filings [11] [6]. These repostings indicate the document has been widely copied from the court filing but do not themselves adjudicate the truth of the allegations.
4. What the sources do and do not say about case outcome
Available sources in the provided set reproduce the complaint and docket metadata but do not include entries showing subsequent court orders resolving claims, judgments, settlements, dismissals, or later filings that would indicate the procedural outcome of the case (available sources do not mention final judgment, dismissal, or settlement within the provided results). CourtListener’s docket pages shown in these results document the case existence and party listing but the snapshots provided here do not include a final disposition document [6] [7].
5. How to interpret an unadjudicated complaint
A complaint is an allegation presented to a court and does not itself establish liability or fact. The documents in these sources are the plaintiff’s sworn pleading as filed; they state alleged events in graphic terms but do not establish the truth of those allegations absent adjudication, settlement, or corroborating court rulings — and the provided material does not show such adjudication [2] [3]. Reporting and secondary repostings echo the complaint language but are repeating the plaintiff’s allegations from the public filing [10] [5].
6. Why this document has circulated widely and what that implies
Because the filing implicates well‑known figures, copies and transcriptions of the complaint have been republished across blogs, archival sites, and social platforms, producing multiple mirrors of the same four‑to‑six page complaint [3] [2] [10]. Widespread circulation increases public attention but does not substitute for court resolution; readers should distinguish between a filed allegation and a court determination [6] [4].
7. Next steps for verification or follow‑up reporting
To assess the case’s procedural history and any rulings, reporters should retrieve the full court docket from the Central District of California’s PACER system or obtain later docket entries beyond the complaint; the sources provided here cite the initial complaint and docket index but lack later filings or dispositional records [6] [4]. Because the available documents are primary‑source pleadings, careful sourcing and clear language distinguishing allegation from adjudicated fact are essential in any further coverage [2] [3].