Did Katie Johnson file an appeal after dismissal and what was the outcome?
Executive summary
dismissal">Katie Johnson did not file an appeal after the federal dismissal of her 2016 complaint, and the litigation ended with the plaintiff’s later voluntary withdrawals rather than any appellate decision — the complaint was dismissed in May 2016 and subsequent re‑filings were withdrawn in 2016, with no appeals recorded in public court records through February 2026 [1] [2] [3].
1. How the case was disposed in trial court: dismissal, not adjudication
The initial federal complaint filed in April 2016 in Riverside was dismissed for failing to state valid federal claims, a disposition reflected on the public docket and in the judge’s order that the case be dismissed [1]; that dismissal meant the court did not reach the substantive merits of the allegations before terminating that filing [3].
2. Re‑filings and voluntary withdrawal: the litigation’s practical end
After the California dismissal the matter was refiled in New York but those later complaints were voluntarily withdrawn by the plaintiff’s attorneys in 2016, with the final withdrawal submitted on November 4, 2016 — a step the plaintiff’s lawyer said followed threats and safety concerns rather than a court ruling on the merits [2] [3] [4].
3. No appellate record: absence of an appeal on public dockets
Multiple contemporary and retrospective accounts, along with legal trackers, report there is no public record that Johnson appealed the dismissal of the original case or any later withdrawal; legal summaries compiled as recently as late 2025 and public docket services show no notice of appeal or appellate briefing tied to the Katie Johnson matter [5] [2] [1].
4. Why ‘no appeal’ matters: procedural consequence versus factual resolution
Because no appeal was taken and later filings were withdrawn, no appellate court evaluated the claims and no judgment on the substantive allegations exists in the record — the litigation closed through dismissal and voluntary withdrawal rather than appellate resolution or settlement [1] [2].
5. Competing narratives and the limits of available evidence
Reporting at the time included denials from defendants and commentary that the claims were “frivolous” or politically motivated, and journalists noted the plaintiff’s attorney cited threats — these counterclaims and the plaintiff’s safety concerns offer competing explanations for why the case ended without appeal, but public records do not adjudicate those assertions [3] [4].
6. Transparency, pseudonyms and investigative limits
Public reporting also highlighted difficulties verifying the plaintiff’s contact details and identity used in filings, and news outlets have repeatedly warned that no court reached the merits; while these details informed coverage, they do not substitute for appellate filings — and because no appeal appears on the dockets, there is no appellate opinion to review [2] [6] [1].
7. Bottom line and what remains unproven in public record
The bottom line in the court record is clear: the federal case was dismissed, later re‑filings were withdrawn, and there is no record that Katie Johnson appealed the dismissal; absent an appeal or subsequent filing, there is likewise no appellate ruling or reversal to report as of February 2026 [1] [2] [5].