What public court documents exist for the Katie Johnson / Jane Doe lawsuits against Trump and Epstein?
Executive summary
Public federal complaints were filed in 2016 by an anonymous plaintiff who used the names “Katie Johnson” and “Jane Doe” accusing Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump of sexual abuse when she was a minor; portions of those pleadings and related affidavits circulate online and in archive repositories, while the suits were ultimately withdrawn or dismissed before reaching merits adjudication [1] [2] [3]. Additional older Jane Doe complaints against Epstein unrelated to Trump exist in the public record and in court archives, and recent releases of Epstein-related materials from government sources have renewed attention to those filings [4] [5].
1. The original 2016 federal complaints — what is publicly available
A federal complaint filed in April 2016 in Riverside, California, under the pseudonym “Katie Johnson,” and later filings using “Jane Doe,” are publicly available in the form of complaint text and affiliated documents that have been posted to archive sites and docket repositories; full-text reproductions of at least one version of the suit — including detailed allegations and named supporting affidavits — can be found in archive dumps of the complaint pages [2] [6]. Reporting contemporaneous to the filings and later summaries likewise identify the sequence: an April 2016 Riverside filing, subsequent refilings in New York during summer 2016, and a September 2016 “Jane Doe” complaint that was later withdrawn [1] [3].
2. Affidavits, exhibits and “material witness” statements that have circulated
The pleadings that have been shared publicly include sworn affidavits attributed to anonymous corroborating witnesses — commonly labeled “Tiffany Doe” and “Joan Doe” in the papers — which the complaint describes as corroborating the plaintiff’s account and alleging recruitment and witnessing of abuse at Epstein-hosted parties; copies or transcriptions of those affidavits appear within the archived complaint text that has been republished online [2] [7]. Media and fact‑checking outlets have noted that those same affidavit passages are the documents most often cited and reposted in social media recirculations of the case [3] [8].
3. Court activity: dismissals, withdrawals and procedural disposition
The series of suits tied to the “Katie Johnson”/“Jane Doe” identity did not produce a trial on the merits: the initial California complaint was dismissed on procedural technicalities, and subsequent complaints were withdrawn or dismissed before evidentiary proceedings; the New York filings were dropped in late 2016 amid threats and publicity concerns, according to reporting at the time [1] [7] [3]. News coverage and legal summaries emphasize that the claims never proceeded to judgment against the named defendants and therefore did not yield courtroom findings about the allegations [7] [8].
4. Other public Epstein-era complaints and government records that are relevant
Separately, older Jane Doe suits against Epstein — for example a 2008 complaint in Palm Beach that was filed in state court and later appears in federal docket archives — are part of the public court record and have been cited in judicial materials released by courts and government repositories; some of those records can be accessed via govinfo or court dockets [4]. In subsequent years the Justice Department and other entities have released troves of Epstein-related materials under various actions and legislation, and those releases have prompted renewed attention to the 2016 civil filings and related documents [5].
5. Caveats, contested provenance and gaps in the public docket
There is active dispute about the provenance and reliability of parts of the “Katie Johnson” record: fact‑checking and reporting note that some versions of the filing have been promoted or republished by actors whose motives have been questioned, and several outlets caution that elements of the narrative circulated on social media are misattributed or out of context [8] [3]. Major public repositories and news organizations reproduce the complaint text and affidavit material, but contemporaneous reporting also documents that lawyers, sources and some later writers cast doubt on aspects of the filing’s origin and on whether the named pseudonyms ever corresponded to an independently verified identity [8] [9]. The public record therefore contains the complaints and supporting affidavits as posted to archives and dockets, formal notices of dismissal/withdrawal in media reporting, and separate Epstein-era complaints in court archives — while some questions about who authored or promoted particular documents remain the subject of dispute in the reporting [2] [6] [8].