What is the final disposition or current status of case 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS in the Central District of California?

1. What the filings in the packet show: the complaint and docket copies

The materials collected in these results include the original complaint filed April 26, 2016, and multiple mirror copies preserved on archive sites and document aggregators (FactCheck.org PDF mirror, Internet Archive copies, Yumpu/TXT conversions) that reproduce the six‑page complaint text in Case No. 5:16‑cv‑00797‑DMG‑KS ^{[1] [3] [4] [5]}. The complaint accuses multiple defendants and contains graphic allegations that were widely circulated online; those documents are captured in the archive files linked here ^{[3] [4]}.

2. CourtListener and related docket metadata: a partial trail

CourtListener has an entry for Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump that lists the case number and indicates the matter was referred (metadata updated as late as August 8, 2025), but the CourtListener pages cited in the search results in this packet do not, in the extracts provided, show a final judgment or termination entry textually reproduced here ^{[6] [7] [8]}. The CourtListener metadata confirms the case exists in the Central District of California system and preserves party lists and administrative identifiers ^{[7] [8]}.

3. Public mirrors show complaint content but not disposition

Multiple mirrors — Internet Archive files, a FactCheck.org copy of the complaint PDF, and document hosting sites — reproduce the complaint and related docket page images ^{[1] [3] [2]}. Those mirrors are useful for reading the allegations and the initial docket text, but the archived PDF snapshots in these search results do not include a subsequent docket entry showing the case’s outcome (dismissal, settlement, transfer, or judgment) ^{[2] [3]}.

4. What these sources do not say: absence of a documented final status here

Available sources in this packet do not mention a final disposition, a court order disposing of the case, or a termination entry in the docket text provided here. The retrieved items are largely the complaint (Document 1) and early docket pages (Document 5), but none of the linked snippets in this set show a closing docket entry or final court ruling text ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Therefore, the documents supplied do not establish the case’s ultimate resolution.

5. Competing interpretations and why this matters

One reasonable interpretation from these fragments is that the case was filed and attracted wide circulation of the complaint text online; another is that the wider federal docket system recorded routine administrative activity (as CourtListener shows) but those results here don’t reflect the later procedural steps. Because these sources do not include a termination entry, it is possible the case was administratively closed, dismissed, settled, or otherwise resolved — but such outcomes are not documented in the materials provided ^{[6] [7]}. Readers should treat the presence of archived complaint copies as distinct from evidence of the final court ruling.

6. How to obtain the definitive answer (based on the gaps here)

To determine the final disposition conclusively, consult the official PACER docket for Case No. 5:16‑cv‑00797‑DMG‑KS or contact the Clerk’s Office of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The search results provided here point to mirrors and metadata entries (CourtListener, Internet Archive) that reproduce the complaint and early docket material but do not substitute for the full PACER docket or a certified court order ^{[2] [6]}.

Limitations and transparency: this report relies solely on the search results and archived documents included in your packet; those items document the filing and copies of the complaint but do not contain a recorded final judgment or termination entry ^{[1] [2]}.