What were the legal reasons judges dismissed or rejected the Katie Johnson/Jane Doe lawsuits?

1. Dismissed for failing to plead a valid federal claim

The central, documented legal reason for dismissal in the Riverside, California docket was that the pro se complaint did not allege a viable civil‑rights cause of action under the federal statutes the plaintiff tried to invoke: the magistrate and district court concluded the pleading “fails to state a civil rights claim” under 18 U.S.C. §2241 and 42 U.S.C. §1985, and recommended denying in forma pauperis status and dismissing the case for that reason . Media contemporaneous reporting summarized the ruling as the complaint “didn’t raise valid claims under federal law,” reflecting the court’s view that the legal scaffolding chosen by the plaintiff did not fit the facts as pled ^[1].

2. “Technical grounds” describes procedural, not evidentiary, failings

Multiple accounts describe the California dismissal as occurring on “technical grounds,” a shorthand that courts and reporters use to indicate procedural or pleading defects rather than findings about the truth or falsity of underlying allegations; the book All the President’s Women and other coverage reiterate that characterization, underscoring that the dismissal left the factual allegations unadjudicated ^[3]. Independent coverage noted problems with the initial filing — a pro se complaint with unverifiable contact details and other oddities — issues that courts treat as part of the adequacy of pleadings ^[4].

3. Refiling and voluntary withdrawal in New York — case never litigated to verdict

After the California dismissal, the plaintiff (also referred to in filings as “Jane Doe”) filed a separate federal suit in New York, but that New York action was voluntarily dismissed by her attorneys in early November 2016, days before the presidential election; press reporting and legal summaries indicate the attorneys filed a notice of dismissal without providing a judicial ruling on the merits, so the allegations were never resolved in court ^{[2] [5]}. Reports contemporaneously noted the plaintiff and counsel cited safety concerns and threats as factors that contributed to the withdrawal, though the court docket reflects voluntary dismissal rather than judicial rejection on substantive grounds ^{[6] [2]}.

4. Context, competing narratives and possible motivations

Reporting around the suits highlighted muddying factors: media inquiries found inconsistencies in contact information and raised questions about publicity efforts tied to the claims, with some outlets noting a publicist sought to sell access to the accuser’s video and a former TV producer’s involvement in coordinating coverage — details that feed alternative explanations about motives and credibility and which likely influenced public reception even though they are not legal grounds for dismissal ^{[2] [4]}. Conversely, advocates for the plaintiff emphasized threats and fear for safety as reasons the case was withdrawn, a non‑legal reality that affects litigants’ willingness to pursue matters even when courts do not rule on the core allegations ^[6].

5. Bottom line: procedural dismissal and voluntary dismissal, not a merits decision

The authoritative court record shows the California action was dismissed because the complaint failed to state recognized federal civil‑rights claims under the statutes cited, and the subsequent New York filing was voluntarily dropped by the plaintiff’s attorneys before adjudication; therefore, no judge rendered a decision accepting or rejecting the core factual allegations on their merits in either federal action ^{[2] [1]}. Reporting and later summaries that say the suits were “dismissed” are accurate but incomplete without the distinction that the dismissals were procedural or voluntary, leaving the underlying accusations legally unresolved ^{[3] [5]}.