Have any lawsuits or criminal charges been filed in relation to Katie Johnson's accusation against Trump?

1. What actually was filed: short-lived federal civil suits

Records and contemporaneous reporting show an anonymous plaintiff using the name “Katie Johnson” filed a federal civil complaint in 2016 alleging she was sexually assaulted by Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump; versions of the case were filed in California and later in New York, seeking damages and describing alleged incidents in the 1990s (court docket and reporting) ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Court outcomes: dismissals and withdrawals, not a trial

The available sources state the initial California complaint was dismissed in May 2016 for failing to state a valid federal civil rights claim and subsequent re‑filings were withdrawn or dropped later that year; the matter did not proceed to a jury or a civil judgment on the merits ^{[2] [3] [5]}.

3. Criminal charges: not found in current reporting

Multiple news accounts and later retrospectives report that no criminal indictments grew out of the Katie Johnson filings; the material in the sources explicitly says “no criminal charges were ever filed” in relation to these specific allegations ^{[4] [2] [3]}. Court dockets cited are civil dockets, not criminal prosecutions ^{[1] [6]}.

4. Why no criminal case? — evidence, anonymity and procedure

Reporting suggests several practical obstacles that help explain the absence of criminal charges: the lawsuits were filed under a pseudonym and proceeded as civil litigation handled by pro se or later withdrawn counsel; judges dismissed or allowed withdrawals for procedural reasons, limiting paths toward a parallel criminal referral based on the public record ^{[2] [5] [7]}. Available sources do not mention any prosecutor filing charges tied to these filings ^{[4] [3]}.

5. Credibility disputes and competing narratives

News outlets and later retrospectives document sharp disagreements over the plaintiff’s credibility. Some reporting characterizes the suit as unproven and notes elements that prompted skepticism, while others treat her allegations as part of a broader pattern of untried or disputed claims involving Epstein’s circle; conservative outlets and skeptics called the filings a hoax, and other outlets highlighted that the plaintiff cited threats and withdrew, creating unresolved questions ^{[2] [8] [3] [9]}.

6. The role of third parties and promotion

Several pieces note that promotion and amplification by activists, media figures, and individuals with a history of creating sensational material complicated public understanding: some investigators say promoters helped publicize the claims; other reporting suggests manipulation or falsehoods played a role in how the story circulated online ^{[10] [8] [9]}. These dynamics contributed to partisan interpretations of why the case ended without a criminal follow‑up ^{[2] [9]}.

7. What the public record confirms and what it does not

Court dockets and mainstream reporting confirm civil filings that were dismissed or withdrawn in 2016 and that no criminal charges tied to those filings were brought, according to the cited accounts ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Available sources do not mention any subsequent criminal investigation, indictment, or prosecution based specifically on Katie Johnson’s allegations ^{[4] [1]}.

8. Why this still matters: documents, social media and renewed interest

The files and allegations periodically resurface when Epstein-related documents are released or when social media revives the story; several outlets note that unsealed documents and partisan actors can rekindle unproven claims, which in turn fuels misinformation and unresolved public debate because the original civil matters ended without trial ^{[2] [3] [11]}.

Limitations and method note: this summary relies solely on the provided documents and news items. If you want, I can pull specific docket entries or the April–May 2016 complaint language from the court documents cited ^{[1] [7]} to show exact filings and dismissal language.