What are the full docket entries and filings from Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump (C.D. Cal. 2016) on PACER?

1. What the PACER docket entries, as mirrored online, list as filings

Mirrored dockets and document dumps show the lead filing as the Complaint filed April 26, 2016, seeking $100,000,000 and alleging sexual‑abuse and civil‑rights claims against Trump and Epstein, with the case assigned to Judge Dolly M. Gee and discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson (the complaint text is reproduced in archived collections) ^{[1] [7] [8]}. The docket also records a filed summons, a Certification and Notice of Interested Parties, a Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with supporting declaration by plaintiff Katie Johnson, and several clerical entries noting mailed notices and returned mail to the plaintiff’s listed address ^{[2] [3] [9]}.

2. The disposition entries and closure language available on mirrors

The publicly mirrored docket entries include a termination entry indicating the complaint failed to state a civil‑rights claim under 18 U.S.C. §2241 or 42 U.S.C. §1985 and that the case was terminated (MD JS‑6), language consistent with a dismissal for failure to state a claim recorded on the CourtListener mirror ^[4]. Multiple repository listings (Justia, PACERMonitor, Law360 summary pages) reflect the short lifespan of the case in the Central District’s electronic records and note that more current or authoritative entries would be available only via PACER/ECF ^{[6] [10] [11]}.

3. Available document copies, where to find them, and caveats

Complete reproductions of certain docket filings (for example, the complaint PDF and the summons) are hosted on archival sites and PACERMonitor’s public filings pages, and a text transcription of the complaint is archived in the Internet Archive collection of the case documents ^{[1] [2] [7] [8]}. These secondary archives are useful but come with explicit caveats: CourtListener/RECAP, FJC IDB matching, and PACERMonitor all warn that their scraped or donated PACER content “may not be up to date” and that automated matching can misassign documents, so they should not be treated as the official PACER docket without cross‑checking ^{[4] [5]}.

4. What is not demonstrably available from the provided reporting

The sources assembled here do not provide a verbatim, line‑by‑line reproduction of every PACER docket entry as would be served by an authenticated PACER/ECF download, and they acknowledge potential gaps or mismatches in metadata and attachments; therefore any claim that this mirror set is the “full” PACER docket should be qualified—official PACER access is required to retrieve every filed entry and the court’s certified docket history ^{[4] [5] [6]}.

5. Alternative views, agendas, and why accuracy matters

Some online republications and social posts have used excerpts of the complaint to circulate sensational claims; material here shows the complaint’s allegations and dollar demand, but advertising or political actors can amplify unverified or out‑of‑context documents—repositories themselves flag incompleteness and potential mis‑matching and commercial services like PACERMonitor or Law360 gate deeper access behind subscriptions, which creates friction and incentives for selective quoting ^{[7] [10] [11]}. Readers and researchers seeking the definitive, fully authenticated PACER docket should obtain a PACER account or request certified court records to avoid reliance on incomplete mirrors ^{[6] [5]}.