tizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another"); Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 84 (1981) (extending Linda R.S. to hold that private citizens have "no cognizable interest" in process by which magistrates decide whether to issue warrants on criminal complaints);

sued June 4 & 5, 2008, No. 08-M-208 (DRH), 2008 WL 5667021 (N.D.N.Y. July 14, 2008) 55 John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (1989) 52 Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973) 51 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 54 Mazzeo v. Gibbons, No. 2:08-CV-01387-RLH

us between the asserted injury and the claim sought to be adjudicated (i. e. a likelihood that the relief sought is likely to vindicate the injury), Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 93 S. Ct. 1146, 35 L.Ed. 2d 536 (1973), these requirements apply only in the absence of a statute expressly conferring

prosecuted. In American jurisprudence, "a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another." Linda R.S. v. Richard D. 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). Simply put, Epstein's state plea under the NPA could not extinguish any victim's right to prosecution since

prosecuted. In American jurisprudence, "a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another." Linda R.S. v. Richard D. 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). Simply put, Epstein's state plea under the NPA could not extinguish any victim's right to prosecution since

that it creates a private right of action, [The plaintiff's] reliance on the criminal statute to create a private right of action is misplaced. See Linda R.S. v. Richard JOT 410 U.S. 614, 619, 93S. Ct. 1146, 35 L. Ed. 2d 536 (1973) ("(Al private ctizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecui