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.
Why was the Katie Johnson lawsuit filed in California in 2016 withdrawn?
Executive summary
Coverage of the 2016 “Katie Johnson” lawsuit shows multiple procedural reasons given for why the California filing was discontinued and later withdrawn, but reporting also flags missing public explanations and safety concerns by the plaintiff. Court records show a May 2016 dismissal on technical legal grounds, and contemporaneous reporting and lawyers’ statements say a later refiled complaint was dropped amid fears and because it had not been properly served or pleaded, with some accounts noting threats to the accuser [1] [2] [3].
1. Dismissed in May 2016 for failing to state a federal civil-rights claim
The federal docket from the Riverside filing records a clear judicial ruling: Judge Dolly M. Gee’s clerk entry says the complaint “fails to state a civil rights claim” under 18 U.S.C. §2241 or 42 U.S.C. §1985, and the case was terminated in early May 2016 [1]. Multiple news outlets echoed that legal basis: Politico reported the judge found the complaint did not raise valid federal claims, and book excerpts and aggregations repeated that the California action was dismissed on those technical grounds [2] [4]. That dismissal, according to court records, was procedural rather than a factual finding on the underlying allegations—meaning the judge concluded the legal theories in the complaint were not the correct ones for federal court relief [1] [2].
2. Refiled complaints, service problems, and additional procedural withdrawals
Reporting indicates the matter did not end with the May dismissal: a second version of the suit was filed in New York in June 2016 and there were subsequent refilings and withdrawals. Politico and other outlets noted a later federal filing was apparently never served on the defendants and was withdrawn a few months later; some accounts say a version refiled in California or New York was withdrawn in September or November 2016 [2] [5] [6]. Snopes and other contemporaneous fact-checking reported the California filing was dismissed partially over technical filing errors — such as problematic address information — and that at least one refiled complaint ran into service and pleading problems [7] [1]. These procedural snafus help explain why filings were short-lived or later dropped even without a public settlement or adjudication on the merits [7] [2].
3. Plaintiff’s safety concerns and a canceled press conference
Journalistic accounts document a human element that added to the case’s ambiguity: Lisa Bloom, who later represented the plaintiff under the pseudonym “Katie Johnson” or “Jane Doe,” said the woman withdrew from a scheduled news conference in October 2016 saying she had received threats and feared for her life; subsequent reporting repeated that the suit was dropped in November as the accuser went to ground [3] [4]. The Daily Mail, Times of India and other outlets similarly reported that threats contributed to the plaintiff’s decision to step back, though those outlets also mixed in other claims that are not uniformly corroborated by court records [8] [9]. Available sources do not provide a single, definitive public record from the plaintiff explaining withdrawal; instead, contemporaneous press statements and lawyers’ comments are the primary public narrative [3] [4].
4. Conflicting accounts and why some observers saw mystery or fabrication
Some coverage questioned the credibility of the claims or the motives behind the filings, while others emphasized procedural explanations. Snopes and Sacramento News & Review noted the initial complaint contained errors and was dismissed for pleading defects, and that later representation and promotion of the story involved intermediaries whose tactics raised questions [7] [10]. Conversely, Lisa Bloom and other advocates who backed the later filings suggested credibility and safety concerns shaped the accuser’s choices to withdraw from public exposure; a book publisher and several mainstream outlets described the dismissal as technical rather than dispositive on truth [4] [2]. Thus reporting presents two competing lenses: legal technicalities and file-management issues explain court dispositions, while advocates emphasize threats and safety as reasons the plaintiff retreated from public testimony [7] [3].
5. What the record does and does not resolve
Court records and reliable press coverage converge on a few key facts: the April 2016 Riverside complaint was dismissed in May for failing to state proper federal civil-rights claims, and later versions were refiled and ultimately withdrawn or dropped amid service and pleading problems [1] [2] [7]. What remains unsettled in the public record is why the plaintiff chose not to pursue or litigate further in open court beyond those procedural issues—reports cite threats and fear for safety, but there is no single public sworn statement or court order that fully settles whether the withdrawals were due only to legal technicalities, safety concerns, or other reasons [3] [4] [9]. Available sources do not mention a public settlement paid by the defendants; instead they document dismissals, refiled complaints, and statements about threats and procedural deficiencies [2] [7].
In short, the California 2016 filing was legally dismissed on technical grounds, subsequent versions faced service and pleading deficiencies, and contemporaneous reporting says the plaintiff cited threats and fear as reasons for withdrawing—yet the public evidence does not provide a definitive single explanation that resolves all lingering questions [1] [2] [3].