Paula Corbin Jones v. William Jefferson Clinton, 206 F.3d 811 (8th Cir. 2000). · Go Syfert
Paula Corbin Jones v. William Jefferson Clinton, 206 F.3d 811 (8th Cir. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Piens v. Reckard (sdd, 2024-07-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Piens v. Reckard
D.S.D. · 2024 · confidence medium
Ed. 2d 536 (1973); Jones v. Clinton, 206 F.3d 811, 812 (8th Cir. 2000); and Kunzer v. Magill, 667 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1061 (D.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Piens v. Reckard
D.S.D. · 2024 · confidence medium
Ed. 2d 536 (1973); Jones v. Clinton, 206 F.3d 811, 812 (8th Cir. 2000); and Kunzer v. Magill, 667 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1061 (D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pace v. Bowles
E.D. Mo. · 2024 · confidence medium
Mo. Mar. 12, 2019) (citing Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 , 619 (1973) (“[I]n American jurisprudence at least, a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution . . . of another.”); Jones v. Clinton, 206 F.3d 811, 812 (8th Cir. 2000) (finding a private party has no standing to prosecute a criminal action)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hatchett v. Reese
N.D. Iowa · 2022 · confidence medium
Jones v. Clinton, 206 F.3d 811, 812 (8th Cir. 2000).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Canada v. All Members of Damascus Way Staff
D. Minnesota · 2021 · confidence medium
Minn. 2009) (a private citizen does not have authority to initiate a criminal proceeding, or to seek to have a criminal proceeding opened against another person or entity), citing Jones v. Clinton, 206 F.3d 811, 812 (8th Cir. 2000); see also Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (private citizens have no constitutional or other right to a criminal investigation, nor any judicially- cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another); Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286 (“private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by Congress.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Canada v. Antony
D. Minnesota · 2021 · confidence medium
Minn. 2009) (a private citizen does not have authority to initiate a criminal proceeding, or to seek to have a criminal proceeding opened against another person or entity) (citing Jones v. Clinton, 206 F.3d 811, 812 (8th Cir. 2000)); see also Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (private citizens have no constitutional or other right to a criminal investigation, nor any judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another); Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286 (2001) (“private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by Congress.”…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Barnett
D.S.D. · 2020 · confidence medium
See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 , 619 (1973) (stating that “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”); Jones v. Clinton, 206 F.3d 811, 812 (8th Cir. 2000) (stating that a private individual does not have standing to bring an action for criminal contempt); ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 645 F.3d 954, 958 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing Faibish v. Univ. of Minn., 304 F.3d 797 , 801 (8th Cir. 2002)) (stating that if a plaintiff lacks standing to sue, the district court has no subject-matter jurisdiction…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Horst v. Keller
D.N.D. · 2019 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 , 619 (1973) (Aa private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another@); 8 Parkhurst v. Tabor, 569 F.3d 861 , 865B67 (8th Cir.2009) (crime victims lack standing to compel a criminal prosecution); Jones v. Clinton, 206 F.3d 811, 812 (8th Cir. 2000) (a private party lacks standing to prosecute an action for criminal contempt ); Smith v. Shaw, No. 5:09B01001, 2012 WL 1832340 , at * 1 (S.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hubbard v. Missouri Department of Mental Health
W.D. Mo. · 2019 · confidence medium
See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 , 619 (1973) (“[I]n American jurisprudence at least, a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution . . . of another.”); Jones v. Clinton, 206 F.3d 811, 812 (8th Cir. 2000) (finding a private party has no standing to prosecute a criminal action).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sexton v. Potterfield
W.D. Mo. · 2018 · confidence medium
See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 , 619 (1973) (“[I]n American jurisprudence at least, a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution . . . of another.”); Jones v. Clinton, 206 F.3d 811, 812 (8th Cir. 2000) (finding a private party has no standing to prosecute a criminal action); Bass Angler Sportsman Soc’y v. U.S. Steel Corp., 324 F. Supp. 412, 415 (S.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kunzer v. Magill
D. Minnesota · 2009 · confidence medium
Jones v. Clinton, 206 F.3d 811, 812 (8th Cir.2000); Keenan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 611 (1st Cir.1964) (per curiam); Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir.1989) (per curiam); Conn. Action Now, Inc. v. Roberts Plating Co., 457 F.2d 81, 86-87 (2d Cir.1972) (“It is a truism, and has been for many decades, that in our federal system crimes are always prosecuted by the Federal Government, not as has sometimes been done in Anglo-American jurisdictions by private complaints.”); Bass Angler Sportsman Soc’y v. United States Steel Corp., 324 F.Supp. 412, 415 (S.D.Ala.1971) (it is a “firmly e…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lehn v. Hartwig
7th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
Jones v. Clinton, 206 F.3d 811, 812 (8th Cir.2000); Kienle v. Jewel Tea Co., 222 F.2d 98 (7th Cir.1955).
cited Cited "see" Wike v. Douglas County
D. Neb. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jones v. Clinton, 206 F.3d 811, 812 (8th Cir. 2000).
cited Cited "see" Hofmann v. Fermilab Nal/Ura
N.D. Ill. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jones v. Clinton, 206 F.3d 811, 812 (8th Cir.2000) (criminal contempt context).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Keller v. Perotti
W.D. Mo. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Minn. 2009); see also Jones v. Clinton, 206 F.3d 811, 812 (8th Cir. 2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Paula Corbin Jones United States of America, Office of the Independent Counsel, Intervenor Below
v.
William Jefferson Clinton Danny Ferguson Dolly Kyle Browning, Movant-Appellant
99-2216.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Mar 22, 2000.
206 F.3d 811
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published

206 F.3d 811 (8th Cir. 2000)

PAULA CORBIN JONES; PLAINTIFF,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, INTERVENOR BELOW,
v.
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON; DEFENDANT-APPELLEE,
DANNY FERGUSON; DEFENDANT,
DOLLY KYLE BROWNING, MOVANT-APPELLANT.

Nos. 99-2216, 99-3486

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Submitted: March 15, 2000
Decided: March 22, 2000

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Before Hansen, Heaney, and Fagg, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Dolly Kyle Browning, a nonparty witness in Paula Corbin Jones's civil suit against President William Jefferson Clinton, filed a motion asking the district court to hold President Clinton in criminal contempt of court, to recuse itself, and to transfer the matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The district court denied Browning's motion and later, on its own motion, held the President in civil contempt for willfully disobeying the court's discovery orders and giving false and misleading deposition testimony.

2

Browning now appeals, raising various contentions related to the district court's civil contempt order and its denial of Browning's motion. We decline to address Browning's contentions, however, because we conclude Browning lacks standing to bring this appeal. Browning is not a named party in the underlying civil action and did not move to intervene in that action. See Curtis v. City of Des Moines, 995 F.2d 125, 128 (8th Cir. 1993) ("Only a properly named party may initiate an appeal . . . and those who neither intervene or otherwise attain party status may not appeal a district court's judgment."). Likewise, Browning does not have "'"an interest in the cause litigated [nor has she] participated in the proceedings actively enough to make [her] privy to the record,"'" id. (quoted case omitted), so as to give her standing to appeal despite her nonparty status. Additionally, to the extent Browning quarrels with the district court's failure to hold the President in criminal contempt of court, Browning as a private party "has no standing to prosecute an action for criminal contempt or to take an appeal from the court's rejection of [her] allegations." Ramos Colon v. United States Attorney for the Dist. of Puerto Rico, 576 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1978).

3

We thus dismiss Browning's appeal.