Which jurisdictions have online access to filed affidavits and declarations for a Katie Johnson?
Executive summary
Publicly filed documents tied to the anonymous plaintiff using the name “Katie Johnson” appear in federal dockets in at least the Central District of California and in New York federal filings (filed later under “Jane Doe”), and copies of the California complaint and docket entries are available online via archival and docket sites [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and archival traces also show multiple, unrelated people named Katie Johnson in other jurisdictions (e.g., a Middle District of Florida complaint and a Jenner & Block attorney), meaning name collisions complicate searches and attribution [4] [5].
1. Central District of California — available via court dockets and archival mirrors
The April 2016 complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California that used the name “Katie Johnson” is preserved on archival sites and the court docket is publicly indexed: the full text of the filing appears in an archive mirror of the complaint (labelled Case 5:16-cv-00797) and the court docket for that case is viewable through docket aggregator pages that capture filings and entries [1] [3] [2]. These sources show the complaint text and docket events such as an in forma pauperis request and court termination entries, indicating that at least initial filings and docket metadata are accessible online in that jurisdiction [2].
2. New York federal filings — related materials surfaced but with anonymity and dismissal context
Subsequent federal filings in New York courts associated with the same allegations were made under “Jane Doe,” and reporting indicates that portions of those records — or screenshots of them — circulated after a judge ordered certain documents unsealed or otherwise discussed the scope of secrecy; Newsweek reported that documents tied to the anonymous plaintiff existed in New York and that some material surfaced though the particular documents widely posted were from an earlier dismissed filing [6]. That reporting establishes that New York federal courts handled related anonymous filings and that some materials from those proceedings have been published or circulated online, but it also notes the documents in circulation were from dismissed filings rather than an active, adjudicated record [6].
3. Name collisions — other “Katie Johnson” filings in different jurisdictions complicate searches
Search results and institutional captures show multiple distinct legal actors named Katie Johnson — including an unrelated civil-rights/employee-pay complaint filed in the Middle District of Florida, and a corporate litigator named Katie B. Johnson with Jenner & Block — which demonstrates that searches for “Katie Johnson” affidavits and declarations will return unrelated filings unless cross-checked against case numbers, court names, or dates [4] [5]. Government or advocacy filings citing a “Johnson Decl.” may refer to different Katie Johnsons; one Justice Department filing references a Katie Johnson declarant in a real-estate trade case, underscoring the need for precise document provenance checks [7].
4. Caveats about completeness, anonymity, and social amplification
Multiple fact‑checking and archival sources warn that the most-circulated documents were from dismissed or anonymous filings and that social media amplification has led to conflation and occasional misinformation about ongoing court status or settlements; Newsweek and secondary aggregations explicitly state that early anonymous filings were dismissed and that later circulations sometimes repurposed old, dismissed materials [6] [8]. Paid legal databases (noted broadly in Law360 listings) and some docket services preserve case documents behind paywalls, so availability depends on the repository used and whether a community mirror (e.g., CourtListener/RECAP or Internet Archive) captured the PACER record [9] [2].
5. Practical guide distilled from sources
For documentary access based on the sources: Central District of California filings tied to the “Katie Johnson” complaint are viewable through archived mirrors and docket captures [1] [3] [2]; related New York federal filings existed under anonymity and portions have been circulated or unsealed in ways covered by reporting, but those materials often stem from dismissed filings and require careful provenance checks [6]. Beyond those jurisdictions, unrelated cases and professional profiles using the same name appear in the Middle District of Florida and in public legal biographies, meaning any search must verify court, case number, and filing date to ensure the affidavits or declarations located actually belong to the specific “Katie Johnson” matter of interest [4] [5].