What court filings exist in full for the Katie Johnson allegations and what do they show when examined directly?
Executive summary
A federal complaint filed under the name "Katie Johnson" (Case No. 5:16‑cv‑00797) and its docket entries are publicly available and show an April 26, 2016 pro se complaint alleging that Jeffrey Epstein and Donald J. Trump raped and trafficked a 13‑year‑old girl; the complaint and docket records, including scanned copies archived online, are the primary court filings tied to these allegations [1] [2] [3]. The court ultimately dismissed or terminated the California federal case after routine procedural review, and parallel reporting and fact checks show the filings were filed, refiled in other jurisdictions or withdrawn, and later became the subject of broader media and verification scrutiny [3] [4] [5].
1. What court documents exist in full: docket and the April 26, 2016 complaint
The clearest primary materials are the district court docket for Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump, Case No. 5:16‑cv‑00797, and a six‑page complaint filed April 26, 2016 that has been archived as a PDF and text transcription online; repositories that host the docket and complaint copies include CourtListener/RECAP, the Internet Archive, FactCheck.org’s PDF copy, and other document‑sharing services that preserved the complaint pages [3] [6] [1] [2]. Multiple mirror copies and user‑uploaded PDFs/Scribd entries reproduce the same six pages of Document 1, showing the complaint as submitted to the Central District of California [7] [8].
2. What the complaint itself says when read directly
When examined directly, the complaint alleges that a then‑13‑year‑old girl identified by the plaintiff as "Katie Johnson" (also referred to elsewhere in reporting as a "Jane Doe") was recruited and sexually assaulted, and it names Jeffrey E. Epstein and Donald J. Trump as defendants, alleging rape, sex trafficking and related harms; the complaint references a purported witness identified by a pseudonym ("Tiffany Doe") who is said to corroborate the plaintiff’s account [2] [6]. The document is a short, pro se pleading that asserts venue, party residency, and fact allegations in summary form across six pages rather than detailed sworn testimony or extensive evidentiary exhibits, consistent with an initial civil complaint rather than a verified evidentiary filing [2].
3. How the court processed and disposed of the filing
The federal docket shows the case was assigned to Judge Dolly M. Gee and was entered into the court system in April–May 2016, with routine administrative entries such as an in forma pauperis request and notices of assignment; CourtListener’s docket printout and archive captures indicate the case was later terminated or dismissed by the court [3] [6]. Reporting from Politico and PBS recounts that the initial California suit was dismissed in May 2016 for failure to state a federal claim and that separate filings using the Jane Doe pseudonym appeared in New York and were later withdrawn or refiled before being dropped in late 2016, which aligns with the docketed chronology showing short litigation life in the California filing [4] [9].
4. Corroboration, pseudonyms and evidentiary status in court records
The complaint purports to identify an alleged corroborating witness by a pseudonym and relies on narrative allegations rather than sworn depositions or court‑entered evidentiary exhibits in the public docket; public archives of the complaint show testimonial‑style statements but the docket does not contain verified witness depositions or judicial findings substantiating the allegations within the California case record [2] [3]. Fact‑checking and journalistic accounts that later cited or republished the complaint note that the filings exist and were circulated, but they also emphasize that the civil lawsuits were dismissed or withdrawn and did not produce a judicial ruling on the underlying factual claims in the California docket [5] [4].
5. How the filings have been used in media and verification efforts
News outlets and independent fact‑checks reproduced the complaint pages to document that such a federal filing occurred and then placed those filings in context — noting dismissal, refiled complaints in other courts, and the role of pseudonyms — while warning that circulating images or excerpts online sometimes conflated or amplified unsourced claims beyond what the documents themselves show [5] [9] [4]. The public record available via archival PDFs and docket snapshots allows direct inspection of the complaint’s contents, but the court docket for the California case did not result in a trial or judicial finding validating the substantive allegations, a limitation underscored in contemporary reporting and fact checks [3] [1] [5].