Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What specific documents and exhibits has Katie Johnson submitted in her lawsuit against Trump?
Executive summary
Court records show the anonymous plaintiff using the name “Katie Johnson” filed a federal civil complaint in 2016 accusing Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein of sexual abuse; that complaint and related docket entries are available in archived court dockets and document repositories (see the docket and the archived complaint) [1] [2]. Reporting and fact‑checks note the suit was dismissed or withdrawn in 2016 and that the plaintiff used a pseudonym; contemporary coverage and later explainers summarize the complaint’s allegations but also emphasize the case never proceeded to trial [3] [4] [5].
1. The primary document: the 2016 federal complaint and docket entries
The central document attributed to “Katie Johnson” in public archives is the civil complaint filed in the U.S. District Court (case number 5:16‑cv‑00797) and the court docket listing multiple filings—complaint, notices, and a certification of interested parties—which are preserved on archive sites and docket aggregators [1] [6]. A text dump of the complaint that circulates online includes detailed, graphic allegations alleging sexual abuse in 1994 and asserting causes of action such as “sexual abuse under threat of harm” and a civil‑rights conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 [2].
2. What the complaint itself alleges (as printed in archived text)
The archived complaint text alleges the plaintiff was a minor—13 years old in 1994—and describes a series of purported assaults at Jeffrey Epstein’s New York residence, naming Epstein and Donald J. Trump as defendants and detailing claims of repeated sexual acts and coercion [2]. Those allegations are present in the complaint text that has been posted to archival repositories; they form the substantive exhibits of the plaintiff’s pleading as recorded in those archives [2].
3. Supporting filings and docket items that are publicly listed
The docket record lists additional routine filings associated with litigation: a “COMPLAINT” entry, a “CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE OF INTERESTED PARTIES” by the plaintiff, and administrative docket activity including case termination language and notices about returned mail—entries that indicate the case was short‑lived and administratively closed in 2016 [6] [1]. Those docket entries are the clearest public trace of filings beyond the complaint itself [6].
4. Withdrawals, dismissal and the limits of available court materials
Multiple news and reference sources report the lawsuit was refiled and then withdrawn or dismissed in 2016; reporting notes the plaintiff used pseudonyms such as “Jane Doe” or “Katie Johnson” and that the case did not proceed to a contested trial [3] [5] [7]. The available docket entries show termination language and contemporaneous reporting describes the suit as dropped in November 2016, which explains why there is a limited set of court documents and why fuller discovery or trial exhibits are not part of the public record [6] [5].
5. What credible secondary sources add about documents in circulation
Investigative and fact‑check outlets (e.g., Snopes, Vox summaries referenced by Snopes) and later explainers catalog the complaint’s text and caution that the case was dismissed or withdrawn; they also highlight uncertainty about the plaintiff’s identity and note that versions of the complaint circulated on social media and archive sites [4] [7]. These sources emphasize the difference between the archived complaint text and any later claims about settlements or additional sealed exhibits—those later claims are not supported by major reporting or by the docket [4] [7].
6. What is not found in current reporting or the docket
Available sources do not mention any trial exhibits, deposition transcripts, forensic reports, sealed discovery, or a judicial opinion resolving factual disputes in the case—indicative that litigation did not reach evidentiary phases that would generate those items on the public docket [1] [6]. Claims online about subsequent settlements, new filings in 2024–2025, or large caches of corroborating exhibits are not supported by the docket records and contemporaneous reporting cited here [7] [8].
7. How to interpret circulating document copies and viral claims
Archival copies of the complaint and text versions (for example on archive.org and other repositories) reproduce the plaintiff’s allegations and are the primary source material circulating online; reporters and fact‑checkers treat those texts as the source of the allegations while noting procedural dismissal and anonymity of the plaintiff [2] [4]. That distinction—between the content of a complaint (allegations) and proof established through litigation (adjudicated evidence)—is crucial and repeatedly emphasized in the coverage [4] [5].
If you want, I can pull links to the archived complaint text and the court docket entries so you can inspect the exact filings and timestamps referenced in the record [1] [2].