What court documents exist in the Katie Johnson/Jane Doe lawsuits against Trump and Epstein, and where can they be accessed?
Executive summary
Court filings tied to the anonymous plaintiff who used the names “Katie Johnson” and “Jane Doe” include at least one Riverside, California federal complaint (case 5:16‑cv‑00797), docket entries and copies of complaints and affidavits that were circulated online and in archive copies, plus older Florida civil complaints against Jeffrey Epstein that predate the 2016 filings; these materials are available through public docket repositories and archival sites such as CourtListener, Plainsite/archival downloads and archive.org, and broader sets of Epstein-related records have since been published by the Department of Justice [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Reporting and court dockets show the lawsuits were later dismissed or withdrawn and that media and fact‑checkers have flagged questions about aspects of the filings and the parties promoting them [6] [7] [8] [9].
1. The core federal complaints and docket entries: what exists on file
A federal complaint filed under the pseudonym Katie Johnson in April 2016 and assigned as case 5:16‑cv‑00797 is preserved in online docket repositories; CourtListener hosts the docket summary showing a “COMPLAINT against defendants Jeffrey E. Epstein, Donald J. Trump” and related docket activity such as notices and ADR forms [1]. Archive.org additionally hosts what it labels the full text of the lawsuit documents—copies of the complaint and supporting affidavits that make the most sensational allegations—and those archived transcripts and filings are accessible in that collection [3]. Plainsite has been used as a distribution point for downloading the complaint PDF referenced in public reporting [2].
2. Supporting affidavits and the kinds of allegations contained in the filings
The public copies of the complaints include sworn‑style affidavits by anonymous witnesses — widely referenced in reporting as “Tiffany Doe” and “Joan Doe” — which the filings say corroborate the plaintiff’s account of abuse at Epstein‑linked parties; those affidavit excerpts and allegations appear in the archived complaint text and in subsequent media summaries [3] [10]. PBS and other outlets summarized the Jane Doe claim that she was repeatedly raped by Epstein and Trump in 1994 when she was 13, language that mirrors the allegations contained in the complaint materials that circulated in 2016 [11].
3. Earlier and related Epstein civil filings retained in court archives
Separately, earlier civil complaints against Jeffrey Epstein—such as a 2008 Palm Beach filing by a Jane Doe identified in the federal court record—are part of the public court record and have been scanned into government repositories; the Southern District of Florida docket and related govinfo PDFs include pleadings from those Florida cases [4]. Those documents were among the source materials compiled into larger Epstein file releases later collected and published by the Department of Justice under the Epstein Files initiative [5].
4. Public releases, media access points and archival repositories
Users seeking the primary documents can consult public docket aggregators (CourtListener) for the Riverside case docket and archived downloads [1] [2], archive.org for the mirrored full‑text complaint and affidavits [3], and government repositories that hold older Epstein case files and the DOJ’s published trove of Epstein materials [4] [5]. Major news outlets have summarized and republished pieces of those court filings in stories that provide context and excerpts [7] [11].
5. Disposition, disputes over credibility, and limits of the public record
The filings tied to “Katie Johnson” and “Jane Doe” were withdrawn or dismissed in 2016 and never adjudicated on the merits; multiple outlets and fact‑checkers note the cases were dismissed or dropped and that journalists and investigators have raised questions about elements of the filings and the people who promoted them [6] [7] [8]. Counterpoints include reporting that some lawyers and journalists involved said the plaintiff wouldn’t cooperate or that promotion of the claims involved discredited intermediaries; tabloid pieces later labeled the story fabricated, underscoring that credibility disputes remain part of the public record [8] [12] [9]. The sources used here document the filings and where copies have been made public, but they do not provide a court ruling on the truth of the underlying allegations—only the filed documents, docket entries and subsequent withdrawals are visible in the cited records [1] [3] [4].