What documents and dockets exist for the Katie Johnson lawsuits filed in 2016 against Trump and Epstein?
Executive summary
Court records show an anonymous plaintiff using the name “Katie Johnson” filed at least one federal complaint in April 2016 naming Jeffrey Epstein and Donald J. Trump; that Central District of California docket contains a complaint, summons and routine docket entries and was terminated in early May 2016 (Case No. 5:16‑cv‑00797) [1] [2]. Additional, related federal complaints and filings later in 2016 — including a New York filing and other Doe-styled suits that referenced the same allegations — were filed and then withdrawn or dismissed before trial, and public reporting and books summarize but do not fully reproduce a consolidated public docket of every document [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. The California federal docket: what’s on file and what it shows
The California filing that is most readily accessible is preserved on CourtListener and in an Internet Archive snapshot of the official docket; those records list a pro se complaint filed in April 2016 against Jeffrey E. Epstein and Donald J. Trump, attachments identified as a civil cover sheet and summons, a Notice of Assignment to District Judge Dolly M. Gee and Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson, and administrative entries including mail returned and a case termination in early May 2016 (Case Terminated) [1] [2].
2. Documentary contents cited in reporting: complaint text and excerpts
Contemporary news coverage and later books reproduce portions of the complaint and summarize its allegations; Newsweek and PBS describe a 2016 complaint that alleged sexual assault at Epstein’s Manhattan residence in 1994 and note the plaintiff used the pseudonym “Katie Johnson” [3] [5]. Hachette’s excerpt and reporting in All the President’s Women reproduce images and selected pages of the complaint and protective-order-related material, indicating media access to portions of the filing even when full consolidated dockets are not public in one place [6].
3. Multiple filings, refilings and withdrawals across jurisdictions
Reporting indicates the matter did not live in a single uninterrupted docket: after the April 2016 California filing was reportedly tossed or terminated, a New York suit and other Doe-filed complaints with overlapping allegations appeared and were later withdrawn in late 2016; news outlets reported a September/October 2016 New York complaint and a November 4, 2016 voluntary dismissal of at least one case, with some refilings and a version styled “Jane Doe” described in press accounts [4] [3] [5]. Publishers and later reporters note that plaintiff pseudonyms and multiple case captions complicate tying every public document to a single identity or continuous litigation file [6] [3].
4. What the formal dockets do and do not contain publicly
The accessible formal docket for the California case includes procedural filings (complaint, summons, notices, assignment, mail returns, termination) as captured by CourtListener and archived dockets; those dockets do not necessarily contain full investigative materials such as grand jury transcripts or FBI files, which are part of separate investigative productions and broader Epstein-related releases handled by DOJ and other agencies [1] [2] [7]. The Justice Department’s large public production of Epstein-related pages post‑2023/2024 is a separate corpus and advocacy groups have argued some materials remain withheld or redacted [7] [8].
5. Limits of the public record and open questions
Available sources make clear there is a public docket record for the April 2016 California filing and press accounts document subsequent New York and Doe-styled filings, but the public record is fragmented: some filings were terminated or withdrawn, some complaint pages have been excerpted in books and articles rather than published in a single, official public repository, and investigative files released under Epstein-related transparency efforts are not identical to civil-docket documents [1] [2] [6] [7]. Reporting and later investigative pieces (including interviews) add context and claims about why filings vanished or were resolved, but those accounts rely on secondary reporting and do not substitute for an all-inclusive official consolidated docket [9] [10].
6. Practical guide to the documents that do exist
The concrete, citable documents that researchers can point to today are the CourtListener/archived docket for Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump, 5:16‑cv‑00797 (complaint, summons, notice of assignment, administrative entries and termination) and contemporaneous press reproductions or excerpts of complaint pages published in outlets and in at least one book that reproduced select pages [1] [2] [6]. Additional federal complaints with similar allegations are documented in news coverage and legal reporting as filed and later dismissed or withdrawn in 2016, but researchers seeking every underlying pleading, exhibit or investigative transcript will confront a fragmented public record and must consult multiple court dockets and the broader DOJ/Epstein releases for overlapping materials [3] [4] [7].