What filings and case numbers correspond to the Jane Doe/Katie Johnson complaints against Trump and Epstein in 2016?

1. The core docket entries and case numbers

The earliest publicly available federal docket for the plaintiff using “Katie Johnson” is Case No. 5:16‑cv‑00797 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which shows a complaint filed April 26, 2016 and is catalogued on CourtListener as Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump with attachments including the complaint and summons ^{[1] [5]}. In New York, a June 2016 complaint appears as Case No. 1:16‑cv‑04642‑RA in the Southern District of New York and contains the Jane Doe pleading and associated declarations ^[2]. A later filing in the Southern District of New York is documented as Case No. 1:16‑cv‑07673‑RA, filed October 3, 2016, also styled Doe v. Trump and often cited in contemporaneous coverage ^{[3] [4]}.

2. What the pleadings publicly alleged

The complaints and attached declarations allege that the plaintiff, proceeding under pseudonyms “Katie Johnson” and “Jane Doe,” was sexually assaulted at parties hosted by Jeffrey Epstein in 1994 and that Donald Trump was present and participated in assaults; the pleadings include witness declarations using pseudonyms (Tiffany Doe, Joan Doe) and graphic factual allegations about specific incidents described in the complaint exhibits ^{[6] [5] [2]}. Full-text copies of the April 2016 complaint and related exhibits have been preserved and circulated online, including on archive and docket-access sites that reproduce the filing language ^{[5] [6]}.

3. Procedural timeline: filings, refiling, and dismissal reports

Reporting and docket records indicate an April 2016 filing in California, at least one New York filing in June 2016, and another Southern District of New York filing in October 2016 — media summaries describe the matter being refiled and then dropped in November 2016 ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. Public summaries and secondary sources state the suit was withdrawn or dismissed in November 2016, with PBS specifically noting that the 2016 suit was filed in June, refiled in October, and then dropped in November 2016 ^[4], and other repositories list the April 26, 2016 complaint under Case 5:16‑cv‑00797 ^[5].

4. Competing narratives, evidentiary claims, and why certainty is limited

Defendants and some media outlets framed the filings as fabricated or politically motivated, and coverage noted disputes over the plaintiff’s identity and credibility; for example, Trump’s legal team called the allegations a “hoax” and outlets such as Daily Mail published reporting asserting fabrication ^[7]. At the same time, the complaints rely on pseudonymous witnesses and declarations that the plaintiff and witnesses sought anonymity for safety, which complicates independent verification ^{[6] [2]}. The Department of Justice’s later mass release of Epstein-related records renewed public attention to names and spreadsheets referencing public figures but does not resolve the civil-case procedural history about why the 2016 complaints were withdrawn or how the plaintiff’s claims were litigated or settled in full ^{[8] [9] [10]}.

5. What public records confirm and what remains unclear

Court docket records and archived complaint PDFs confirm the existence of the April 2016 California complaint (Case 5:16‑cv‑00797), at least one June 2016 New York filing (Case 1:16‑cv‑04642‑RA), and an October 2016 Southern District filing (Case 1:16‑cv‑07673‑RA), and contemporaneous reporting indicates the matter was dropped in November 2016 ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. What the public record in the provided sources does not disclose with certainty is the full procedural disposition language for each docket entry (for example, the formal dismissal or any written settlement terms), the plaintiff’s later public statements, or court rulings on merits, and those gaps should be acknowledged rather than speculated upon ^{[1] [5]}.