Did Katie Johnson refile her lawsuit against Trump after the 2016 dismissal?

1. A messy origin story that fuels confusion

Contemporaneous reporting and later summaries show the initial claim was filed in mid‑2016, with attorneys and advocates alternately filing and withdrawing complaints under the name “Katie Johnson” or a “Jane Doe” designation. Multiple sources report a June or October 2016 filing followed by a withdrawal in November 2016, citing threats and safety concerns ^{[4] [3]}. The way outlets described these filings—some treating separate complaints as distinct actions, others as refilings of the same underlying claim—created a patchwork public record. That inconsistency in early coverage helps explain why later fact checks and retrospectives reach different conclusions ^{[5] [6]}. Contemporary court dockets were not always publicized in full, and use of pseudonyms and different jurisdictions amplified reporting variance ^[7].

2. The strongest evidence that she did refile in 2016 and soon after

Several independent reports document a sequence in which the civil complaint was filed, withdrawn, then refiled in different forms and jurisdictions in 2016. Some accounts specifically note a June 2016 complaint, an October 2016 refiling, and a November 2016 voluntary dismissal, with attorneys citing threats to the plaintiff’s safety ^{[4] [7] [3]}. Additional reports state that a New York complaint followed the California filings, and that this New York action was also voluntarily dismissed. These contemporaneous and near‑term news reports present the most direct chain of events showing multiple filings and withdrawals within a short time frame ^{[2] [5]}.

3. The fact‑checking angle that finds no post‑2016 sustained suit

A separate line of examination—fact checks and court‑record reviews—concludes there is no public evidence of an active, continuing lawsuit that proceeded past the 2016 withdrawals. These reviews note that while complaints were filed and refiled, the matters were voluntarily dismissed and court dockets do not show later sustained litigation that produced judgments or trial activity. Fact checks therefore summarize the net legal outcome as withdrawn or dismissed, with no successful refiling that advanced after 2016 ^{[1] [6]}. This perspective focuses on legal closure and outcome rather than on the number of initial filings.

4. Why different sources emphasize different facts

Discrepancies stem from three concrete factors reported across the material: pseudonymous filings, multiple jurisdictions, and voluntary dismissals. Reports reference filings under “Jane Doe” or the pseudonym Katie Johnson and attorneys who publicly cited threats—details that are easy to conflate when tracking case status across courts ^{[4] [2]}. Media outlets that emphasized filing events created headlines about refilings, while fact‑checkers and court‑record analysts emphasized dismissals and the absence of a continuing case. Both strands of reporting are accurate on their focal point: one emphasizing the occurrence of repeated filings, the other emphasizing the ultimate legal discontinuance ^{[3] [6]}.

5. What the public record actually shows when reconciled

Reconciliation of the sources finds a short sequence: initial civil complaints were filed in 2016, at least one refiling or new complaint followed that year, and subsequent filings—whether in California or New York—were voluntarily dismissed, with attorneys citing threats and fear ^{[4] [2]}. Fact checks and court summaries emphasize that those dismissals left no active, adjudicated case after 2016. Therefore the claim that she “refiled after the 2016 dismissal” is partly true in that additional filings occurred in 2016 and shortly thereafter, but false if it implies a resumed, sustained lawsuit that proceeded to substantive litigation after those dismissals ^{[1] [6]}.

6. Bottom line for readers and researchers

If your question asks whether Katie Johnson filed additional complaints following an initial 2016 withdrawal, the answer is yes—multiple filings and refilings are reported in 2016 and in a subsequent New York complaint—but those actions were voluntarily dismissed and did not produce a continuing lawsuit that progressed in court after 2016 ^{[2] [1]}. Different outlets stress different aspects—filings versus final outcomes—and both are reflected accurately in the public record summarized here ^{[5] [3]}. For definitive court status on any specific docket number, consult the specific court’s PACER or clerk’s records referenced in the contemporaneous reporting.