What were the procedural reasons the Katie Johnson lawsuits were dismissed or withdrawn in 2016?
Executive summary
The Katie Johnson suits from 2016 unraveled largely for procedural, not substantive, reasons: an initial federal complaint in California was dismissed for failing to plead actionable federal claims, subsequent filings were refiled and then withdrawn amid reported threats and safety concerns, and the litigation never reached adjudication on the merits [1] [2] [3]. Reporting also documents questions about the pleadings’ legal sufficiency and the plaintiff’s anonymity, which complicated judicial and public scrutiny [4] [1].
1. Dismissal in California for failing to plead valid federal claims
The first definitive procedural turn came in April–May 2016 when the anonymous plaintiff’s complaint filed in the Central District of California was dismissed because it did not state an actionable claim under federal law — various accounts describe the judge concluding the pleading failed to cite valid federal causes of action or an actionable civil‑rights claim [1] [2] [5]. Multiple contemporary and retrospective reports emphasize that the dismissal was technical: a ruling about the legal sufficiency of the complaint’s allegations, not a judicial finding on the underlying factual accusations [5] [2].
2. Refilings in New York and continued procedural uncertainty
After the California dismissal the case was refiled in New York federal court — reports say the anonymous plaintiff filed multiple suits in 2016, using pseudonyms such as “Katie Johnson” and “Jane Doe” — but those subsequent filings never culminated in a merits decision [1] [6]. Sources note the litigation was closed and refiled twice in New York before the final procedural posture in November 2016, underscoring a pattern of serial filings and procedural resets rather than a completed adjudication [1] [3].
3. Voluntary withdrawal amid threats and safety concerns
The final procedural act in 2016 was the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal shortly before the presidential election: attorneys filed a one‑page notice of dismissal on November 4, 2016, and counsel publicly cited that the plaintiff had received threats and feared for her safety — reporting frames the withdrawal as a choice made under duress rather than a court‑ordered termination on the merits [3] [5]. Journalistic accounts repeatedly attribute the withdrawal to safety concerns and contemporaneous threats, and emphasize that the claims were never litigated to a factual determination [3] [7].
4. Anonymity, verification problems, and how they affected procedures
Procedural questions were compounded by the plaintiff’s use of a pseudonym and difficulties verifying identity and contact information: journalists who investigated found no independent public verification of “Katie Johnson,” some initial filings included unverifiable addresses and a phone number that didn’t check out, and courts often confront heightened procedural hurdles and scrutiny when complainants proceed anonymously or with sparse contact details [1] [2]. Those gaps fed legal arguments about standing, service, and pleadings’ credibility, which in turn affected how judges and opponents litigated the cases procedurally [1] [2].
5. Judge’s comments, legal framing, and competing narratives
Some reporting records portray a judge openly questioning whether certain described conduct — for example, a kiss alleged in one filing — rose to a federal actionable offense, and suggest a judicial view that historical allegations of other conduct were not legally relevant to the pleaded federal claim; such comments fed the perception that the complaint was legally fragile [4]. At the same time, other sources stress that the dismissal and withdrawal were not conclusive adjudications of truth or falsity: defenders of the plaintiff argue that procedural dismissals and threats prevented a merits hearing, while critics point to thin pleadings and identity issues as legitimate legal reasons for dismissal [4] [1] [3].
6. What the procedural record does—and does not—prove
The consolidated procedural record proves only that the 2016 litigation failed to survive pleading and safety pressures: an initial federal dismissal for pleading defects, refiling, and a voluntary November 2016 withdrawal after reports of threats [1] [5] [3]. The record does not include a trial or judicial finding on the factual allegations themselves; sources caution that absence of a merits ruling is not a legal determination of the underlying claims [3] [1]. Reporting also notes ongoing uncertainty about the plaintiff’s identity and about whether other nonpublic actions ever followed, limitations that should temper any definitive claims about the substance of the allegations [1] [2].