What court documents exist in the Katie Johnson / Jane Doe lawsuits against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein?

1. The core federal docket and its visible filings

The Central District of California docket for Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump, docket number 5:16‑cv‑00797, records the initial civil complaint filed April 26, 2016 (Document 1), along with routine filings such as a request to proceed in forma pauperis, issuance of summonses and a notice of assignment to Judge Dolly M. Gee and Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson; the public RECAP/IDB entry for the case and CourtListener extracts summarize these docket items ^{[1] [7]}. The docket also shows administrative entries including a court‑directed ADR notice and, shortly afterward, a case termination entry in early May 2016, which reporters noted at the time ^[1].

2. The complaint text and where it has been archived

The full complaint text that was filed in April 2016 is archived in multiple places and can be read on the Internet Archive text mirror and in other document repositories; that text is identified as “Document 1” in Case 5:16‑cv‑00797‑DMG‑KS and includes detailed allegations naming Trump and Epstein ^{[2] [3]}. Republished PDFs and slide‑share copies of the complaint and derivative compilations have circulated on Scribd, SlideShare and third‑party docket download sites, which host the same pleading or OCR copies of it ^{[8] [9] [10]}.

3. Additional versions, refilings and “Jane Doe” references

Contemporaneous press summaries and later reporting indicate additional filings or versions were filed or refiled in mid‑2016 and a later complaint used the pseudonym “Jane Doe,” but the docket record most directly tied to the April 2016 filing shows the case was administratively terminated in May 2016; news outlets including PBS and Newsweek summarized that versions were refiled or withdrawn around the 2016 election cycle ^{[4] [5]}. Public records available through CourtListener and archived repositories are the primary source for the April 2016 complaint and related docket entries; if other federal complaints under different case numbers exist, they are not documented in the sources provided here ^{[7] [3]}.

4. What reporters and fact‑checkers documented about provenance and doubts

Investigative reporting and fact‑checks have treated the filings as real court documents but have also raised red flags about the origin story, media campaign and the individuals who promoted the allegations, noting that journalists found inconsistencies and aggressive promotional tactics tied to the materials when they circulated in 2016 and later; Snopes and other outlets have chronicled those provenance concerns while confirming the existence of the filings themselves ^{[6] [11]}. That means public access to the complaint does not settle questions about the broader narrative, which reporters continue to scrutinize ^[6].

5. What is absent or unclear in the public record provided

The provided sources document the April 2016 complaint and docket entries, archived full text and multiple repostings, and describe later filings being refiled or withdrawn, but they do not supply sealed testimony, unredacted discovery, depositions, judge’s merits rulings, or final adjudications of the underlying factual claims; available records show administrative termination in May 2016 and news summaries that the matter did not proceed to a final, litigated judgment on the merits in the public dockets cited ^{[1] [4] [2]}. Where reporting diverges — for example, claims about additional confirmed files in “the Epstein files” or subsequent law‑suit activity — those assertions require other court records or primary sources not included in the provided set ^[11].