Case Title: State ex rel. A.N. v. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office

Citation: 2021-Ohio-2071

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2021-06-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. A.N. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2071.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2021-OHIO-2071 
THE STATE EX REL. A.N., APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S 
OFFICE1 ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. A.N. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, Slip 
Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2071.] 
Mandamus—R.C. 2935.09(D)—Affidavits charging criminal conduct and seeking 
issuance of warrants filed with county prosecutor’s office and city—Writ of 
mandamus sought to compel prosecution under charging affidavits—
Summary judgment as to county prosecutor’s office under Civ.R. 56(C) 
proper when evidence insufficient to warrant prosecution under charging 
affidavits—Dismissal of mandamus complaint against the city under Civ.R. 
12(B)(6) proper when county prosecutor was already investigating 
charging-affidavit allegations—Court of appeals’ dismissal of complaint 
affirmed. 
                                                 
1. Although A.N.’s complaint named the “Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Department” as a 
respondent, it is not disputed that the complaint was actually directed to the Cuyahoga County 
Prosecutor’s Office.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2
(No. 2021-0014—Submitted April 27, 2021—Decided June 24, 2021.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 109848, 2020-Ohio-5628. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, A.N., appeals the Eighth District Court of Appeals’ 
judgment denying writs of mandamus to compel appellees, the Cuyahoga County 
Prosecutor’s Office (“the prosecutor”) and the City of North Olmsted (“the city”), 
to prosecute crimes allegedly committed by his parents between 1997 and 2010, 
when A.N. was a minor.  We affirm. 
I.  Background 
{¶ 2} Under R.C. 2935.09(D), a private citizen seeking to cause the arrest 
or prosecution of another person may charge a criminal offense by filing an 
affidavit with the clerk of a court of record.  If the affidavit alleges a felony, the 
judge, clerk, or magistrate must issue a warrant for the arrest of the person identified 
in the affidavit or refer the matter to the prosecuting attorney for investigation.  R.C. 
2935.10(A). 
{¶ 3} In 2019, A.N., then 25 years old, filed two charging affidavits under 
R.C. 2935.09(D) in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.  In the first 
affidavit, A.N. alleged that his father committed felonious assault under R.C. 
2903.11(A)(2) and felony domestic violence under R.C. 2919.25(D)(3) by 
assaulting him with a hockey stick in April 2001 when he was seven years old, 
causing injuries that required medical treatment.  In the second affidavit, A.N. 
alleged that from 1997 to 2010, his mother committed felony child endangering 
under R.C. 2919.22(B)(4) by subjecting him and his sister to multiple instances of 
physical and emotional abuse. 
{¶ 4} The common pleas court referred the affidavits to the prosecutor’s 
office for investigation under R.C. 2935.10(A).  The prosecutor declined to 
January Term, 2021 
 
3
prosecute either A.N.’s father or mother, and the court filed journal entries 
declining to issue an arrest warrant in either case.  A.N. appealed the trial court’s 
journal entries, but the court of appeals dismissed the appeals.  [A.N.] v. Affidavit 
of Criminal Complaint, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 108787 and 108801, 2020-Ohio-
192, ¶ 20, citing State ex rel. Brown v. Nusbaum, 152 Ohio St.3d 284, 2017-Ohio-
9141, 95 N.E.3d 365 (a prosecutor’s decision not to pursue charges is, generally, 
not a final, appealable order). 
{¶ 5} A.N. then commenced this action in the court of appeals, seeking a 
writ of mandamus to compel the prosecutor or the city to prosecute his parents for 
the offenses alleged in his affidavits.  The prosecutor filed a motion for summary 
judgment under Civ.R. 56 and the city filed a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 
12(B)(6), both of which A.N. opposed.  The court of appeals found that (1) A.N.’s 
petition was barred by res judicata, (2) the offenses he charged were barred by the 
statute of limitations, and (3) there was no abuse of discretion on the part of either 
the prosecutor or the city in deciding to forego prosecution.  2020-Ohio-5628, 164 
N.E.3d 526, at ¶ 8-14.  The court of appeals granted the prosecutor’s motion for 
summary judgment and denied the writ.  Id. at ¶ 15.  As to A.N.’s claim against the 
city, the court of appeals dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon 
which relief can be granted.  Id. 
{¶ 6} A.N. appealed to this court as of right. 
II.  Analysis 
{¶ 7} We review de novo the court of appeals’ grant of summary judgment 
in favor of the prosecutor.  State ex rel. Manley v. Walsh, 142 Ohio St.3d 384, 2014-
Ohio-4563, 31 N.E.3d 608, ¶ 17.  Summary judgment is proper when an 
examination of all relevant materials filed in the action reveals that there is no 
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to 
judgment as a matter of law.  Civ.R. 56(C). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4
{¶ 8} We also review de novo the court of appeals’ judgment dismissing 
A.N.’s claim against the city under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).  State ex rel. McKinney v. 
Schmenk, 152 Ohio St.3d 70, 2017-Ohio-9183, 92 N.E.3d 871, ¶ 8.  Dismissal of a 
mandamus action under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) is appropriate if, after presuming all 
factual allegations in the complaint to be true and drawing all reasonable inferences 
in the relator’s favor, it appears beyond doubt that he can prove no set of facts 
entitling him to a writ of mandamus.  Id. 
{¶ 9} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, A.N. must establish by clear 
and convincing evidence a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty 
on the part of one or both of the respondents to provide it, and the lack of an 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Bunting v. Styer, 
147 Ohio St.3d 462, 2016-Ohio-5781, 67 N.E.3d 755, ¶ 10.  In general, a prosecutor 
has no clear duty to prosecute an offense alleged in a charging affidavit.  State ex 
rel. Capron v. Dattilio, 146 Ohio St.3d 7, 2016-Ohio-1504, 50 N.E.3d 551, ¶ 4.  
“Only when the failure to prosecute constitutes an abuse of discretion will a 
prosecutor be compelled to prosecute.”  Id. at ¶ 4.  Thus, a prosecutor’s 
discretionary decision whether to prosecute is not generally subject to judicial 
review.  State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland, 75 Ohio St.3d 23, 27, 661 N.E.2d 180 
(1996). 
{¶ 10} As to the alleged assault of A.N. by his father in 2001, the parties 
disagree whether the statute of limitations has expired for the offenses alleged in 
A.N.’s affidavit.  See R.C. 2901.13(A)(1)(a) (six-year statute of limitations for 
felonies); R.C. 2901.13(J) (limitations period does not begin to run for abuse or 
neglect “of a child under eighteen years of age or of a child with a developmental 
disability * * * under twenty-one years of age” until the victim “reaches the age of 
majority.”); R.C. 3109.01 (age of majority for persons not under a legal disability 
is 18 years old).  We need not decide, however, whether the statute of limitations 
has expired in this case.  Even if it has not expired, the prosecutor has the discretion 
January Term, 2021 
 
5
to determine whether there is enough evidence to prove the alleged offenses beyond 
a reasonable doubt.  See Bunting at ¶ 19.  There was no prosecution of A.N.’s father 
in 2001 for the alleged assault, even though healthcare professionals, who had a 
statutory duty to report suspected child abuse, treated A.N. and knew his father had 
caused the injuries.  Thus, it was reasonable for the prosecutor to conclude that 
there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for felonious assault or 
felony domestic violence.  The record before us does not show that the prosecutor 
acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably in declining to prosecute a nearly 
20-year-old possible offense, regardless of when the statute of limitations accrued.  
See Master at 27 (“abuse of discretion connotes a decision that is unreasonable, 
arbitrary, or unconscionable”). 
{¶ 11} Similarly, as to the other offenses that A.N. alleged against his 
mother and father, we find no abuse of discretion.  The prosecutor’s office reviewed 
A.N.’s allegations and the evidence that he submitted.  There is no basis upon which 
to conclude that the prosecutor’s office abused its discretion in concluding that it 
lacked sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution.  The court of appeals properly 
granted the prosecutor’s motion for summary judgment. 
{¶ 12} A.N.’s mandamus claim against the city is even less meritorious than 
his claim against the prosecutor.  A.N.’s complaint avers that he brought his 
parents’ alleged crimes to the attention of the city prosecutor, who then referred the 
matter to the county prosecutor’s office.  A.N. does not explain why the city had a 
clear legal duty to do anything more.  Moreover, A.N. filed affidavits under R.C. 
2935.09 with the court of common pleas, which were then referred to the 
prosecutor’s office under R.C. 2935.10.  The city did not abuse its discretion in 
declining to pursue prosecution of alleged offenses that were already referred to the 
county prosecutor for investigation and possible felony prosecution.  See Master, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
6
75 Ohio St.3d at 27, 661 N.E.2d 180.  The court of appeals did not err in granting 
the city’s motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).2    
{¶ 13} A.N. also argues that the court of appeals erred in failing to 
independently find probable cause that either of his parents committed the alleged 
offenses and order the prosecutor or the city to prosecute the offenses.  This 
argument is without merit.  The courts have only a limited role in reviewing 
prosecutorial decisions.  Absent an abuse of discretion, a prosecutor will not be 
compelled to prosecute.  Capron, 146 Ohio St.3d 7, 2016-Ohio-1504, 50 N.E.3d 
551, at ¶ 4. 
{¶ 14} For the foregoing reasons, the court of appeals did not err in denying 
A.N.’s requested relief in mandamus. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, 
and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
 
A.N., pro se. 
 
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James 
E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee Cuyahoga County 
Prosecutor’s Office. 
 
Michael R. Gareau Jr., North Olmsted Director of Law, and Bryan P. 
O’Malley, Assistant Director of Law, for appellee City of North Olmsted. 
_________________ 
                                                 
2. Because we find no abuse of discretion by either the prosecutor or the city in declining to 
prosecute either of A.N.’s parents for the alleged offenses, we need not review the court of appeals’ 
determination that A.N.’s mandamus petition was barred by res judicata.