Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which court has jurisdiction over case number 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS?
Executive summary
Court records for case number 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS show it was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (C.D. Cal.), specifically the Eastern Division, in a complaint styled Katie Johnson (a/k/a Jane Doe) v. Donald J. Trump and others (filed April 26, 2016) [1] [2]. Multiple publicly available docket copies and the complaint itself identify the Central District of California and list the Eastern Division as venue [1] [2].
1. What the case number tells you: decoding 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS
Federal civil case numbers follow a pattern that encodes year, district, judge, and magistrate information. Here, "5:16-cv-00797" is a civil (cv) matter filed in 2016; the trailing "DMG-KS" corresponds to the district judge (D. M. Gonzalez) and the magistrate judge (K. Stevenson or similar initials used by the court) assigned internally. The dockets and document images for this file are hosted under the Central District of California case series, confirming the district [1] [3].
2. Which court has jurisdiction: Central District of California, Eastern Division
The complaint itself states venue as the Eastern Division of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and the PDF copies on public archives and CourtListener are filed under the Central District of California heading [2] [1]. CourtListener’s docket entry for "Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump, 5:16-cv-00797" lists the citation with "(C.D. ...)" indicating the Central District [3] [4].
3. What the publicly filed complaint contains and why venue was claimed
The publicly available complaint (filed April 26, 2016) alleges sex-trafficking and related claims and asserts that venue is proper in the Eastern Division of the Central District because the plaintiff resided in that division; the text of the pleading on archival copies explicitly states that venue is in the Eastern Division of the Central District of California [2] [5]. The substantive allegations are described in the complaint text available on archive sites [2].
4. Multiple public copies and dockets: convergence and limitations
Copies of the complaint and docket entries appear across CourtListener, Archive.org, Yumpu, and other aggregators—each labels the filing as Case 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS and ties it to the Central District of California [3] [1] [5]. That convergence supports the jurisdiction identification, but available sources do not provide a final dispositive ruling or a full procedural history for the case in these snippets; they mainly show the original filing and docket metadata [3] [1].
5. On interpreting the judge initials and docket metadata
The "DMG" in the case caption aligns with Judge Dolly M. Gee (commonly styled D.M. Gee or similar) or other judges depending on local conventions; court docket systems append judge and magistrate initials. CourtListener’s metadata and the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) docket export for this matter reference the case as within the Central District and note referral and judge information [3] [4]. Exact assignment history and any reassignment would require inspecting the district court’s official docket or PACER, which these archived copies do not fully reproduce [3] [4].
6. Conflicting or missing details — what reporting does not say
Public archival copies clearly show the Central District/Eastern Division venue, but available sources do not mention the complete case outcome, whether the case was dismissed, settled, or transferred, nor do they include all subsequent filings or judgments in the public snippets provided here [1] [2]. For full procedural status, PACER access or the Central District of California clerk’s online docket would be necessary; current reporting in these sources stops at initial filings and docket identification [3] [1].
7. Why this matters — jurisdictional implications
Confirming the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division) as the forum matters for which federal rules, local rules, and judges applied, and for records access through that court’s clerk and PACER [2] [1]. Journalistic and legal researchers should consult the court’s official docket for definitive status updates and any later orders not captured in these archived copies (available sources do not mention full subsequent procedural history) [3] [1].
If you want, I can extract or summarize the complaint’s allegations as shown in the archived documents, or guide you how to pull the complete official docket from PACER or the Central District of California clerk’s office.