The opinion
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State
ex rel. Rankin v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-4483.]
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. 2025-OHIO-4483
[THE STATE EX REL .] RANKIN, APPELLANT , v. THE STATE OF OHIO ET AL.,
APPELLEES.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may
be cited as State ex rel. Rankin v. State, “Slip Opinion No.” 2025-Ohio-4483.]
Mandamus—Private-citizen affidavits—Appellant failed to establish that he has a
clear legal right to prosecution of offenses he had alleged in his private-
citizen affidavit or that prosecutors have a clear legal duty to prosecute the
offenses—Court of appeals’ judgment granting prosecutors’ motion to
dismiss appellant’s amended petition affirmed.
(No. 2024-1781—Submitted May 13, 2025—Decided October 1, 2025.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Adams County, No. 24CA1203.
__________________
The per curiam opinion below was joined by KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER,
DEWINE, BRUNNER, DETERS, HAWKINS, and SHANAHAN, JJ.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Bryan Rankin, appeals the judgment of the Fourth District
Court of Appeals dismissing the petition for a writ of mandamus he filed against
appellees, Adams County Prosecuting Attorney Aaron Haslam and Brown County
Prosecuting Attorney Zachary Corbin.1 Rankin had alleged in a private-citizen
affidavit that offenses were committed by the judge who presided over his criminal
trial and a witness who testified against him. He then asked the Fourth District to
issue a writ of mandamus ordering appellees to prosecute the witness and the judge.
The Fourth District granted appellees’ motion to dismiss, holding that they have no
clear legal duty to bring charges as requested. Rankin has appealed and has also
moved to strike appellees’ merit brief.
{¶ 2} We affirm the Fourth District’s dismissal and deny Rankin’s motion
to strike.
I. BACKGROUND
{¶ 3} Under R.C. 2935.09, 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. R.C. 2935.09(D). If the affidavit alleges a
felony, unless there is reason to believe that the affidavit lacks merit or was not
filed in good faith, either a warrant must be issued for the arrest of the person
identified in the affidavit or the matter must be referred to the county prosecuting
attorney for investigation. R.C. 2935.10(A).
{¶ 4} In July 2024, Rankin filed a private-citizen affidavit under R.C.
2935.09 in Adams County Court. The affidavit alleged two criminal offenses. The
first alleged offense was that a witness committed perjury, a felony, when testifying
against Rankin at his criminal trial for interference with custody. See R.C.
2921.11(F) (classifying perjury as a third-degree felony). The second alleged
1. Rankin listed the State of Ohio as a respondent in the caption of his petition, but he identified
only Haslam and Corbin in his prayer for relief.
2
January Term, 2025
offense was that the judge who presided over the trial, Adams County Court Judge
Roy E. Gabbert, knowingly made a false statement asserting that a police report is
not a public record when he excluded the report from evidence at Rankin’s trial,
thereby depriving him of his “constitutional or statutory right” and violating the
judge’s oath of office.
{¶ 5} Rankin’s private-citizen affidavit was referred to the Adams County
Prosecutor’s Office for investigation under R.C. 2935.10, and the prosecutor’s
office in turn referred the affidavit to a special prosecutor in Brown County. The
special prosecutor investigated the allegations, determined that there was not
sufficient evidence to indicate that a crime had been committed, and declined to
pursue criminal charges. The special prosecutor then filed a notification of
dismissal of the affidavit, stating that “the State having reviewed the evidence
exercises its legal discretion and refuses to pursue criminal charges in this matter”
against either the witness or Judge Gabbert.
{¶ 6} In August 2024, Rankin commenced this action in the Fourth District
Court of Appeals, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel appellees to charge the
witness with perjury. Appellees moved to dismiss, and Rankin filed an amended
petition. In the amended petition, Rankin requested the same mandamus relief as
he did in the original petition.2 The amended petition refers to Rankin’s private-
citizen affidavit, but the affidavit is not attached as an exhibit, as it was to the
original petition. Instead, Rankin filed an “amended legal affidavit” elaborating on
the alleged perjury but omitting any reference to Judge Gabbert’s allegedly false
statement regarding the police report. Concurrently, Rankin filed a “motion to
strike” appellees’ motion to dismiss in which he clarified that he also was seeking
2. In addition, Rankin asserted in his original and amended petitions a public-records claim. Rankin
concedes in his merit brief that the Fourth District did not err in dismissing the action with respect
to this claim.
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
an order compelling appellees to prosecute Judge Gabbert—relief he had failed to
request in either his original or his amended petition.
{¶ 7} Appellees moved to dismiss the amended petition for failure to state
a claim under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing that they do not have a clear legal duty to
prosecute the criminal charges alleged in Rankin’s affidavit. The Fourth District
concluded that Rankin was not entitled to a writ compelling the State to prosecute
the witness and Judge Gabbert, because R.C. 2935.10 does not require prosecution
of all offenses alleged in a private-citizen affidavit and, thus, appellees had no clear
duty to pursue the requested charges.3 Accordingly, the Fourth District granted
appellees’ motion and dismissed Rankin’s amended petition.
{¶ 8} Rankin appealed to this court as of right. He filed a motion to appoint
counsel, which we denied. 2025-Ohio-39. He also asks this court to strike
appellees’ merit brief for violating our Rules of Practice.
II. ANALYSIS
{¶ 9} This court reviews de novo a court of appeals’ judgment dismissing a
mandamus complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). State ex rel. Casey v. Brown, 2023-
Ohio-2264, ¶ 15. “Dismissal is justified ‘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., quoting State ex rel. A.N. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor’s
Office, 2021-Ohio-2071, ¶ 8. To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Rankin must
establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of
one or both of the appellees to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of the law. Casey at ¶ 15. He must do so by clear and convincing
evidence. State ex rel. Bunting v. Styer, 2016-Ohio-5781, ¶ 10.
3. The Fourth District apparently construed Rankin’s pleadings liberally as including a request for
a writ compelling prosecution of Judge Gabbert.
4
January Term, 2025
{¶ 10} While Rankin’s merit brief and other filings are difficult to parse, his
principal argument appears to be that the Fourth District erred in denying his
request for a writ of mandamus because appellees abused their discretion in
refusing to prosecute the witness and Judge Gabbert. Because Rankin did not allege
abuse of prosecutorial discretion in his amended petition and the Fourth District
never considered this allegation, this argument cannot be considered on appeal. See
State ex rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd, 2024-Ohio-1387, ¶ 18, quoting During v. Quoico,
2012-Ohio-2990, ¶ 43 (10th Dist.) (“‘An appellant cannot change the theory of her
case and present new arguments for the first time on appeal.’ ”). Accordingly, our
analysis focuses on whether Rankin sufficiently alleged that he has a clear legal
right to prosecution of the charges alleged in his private-citizen affidavit and that
appellees have a clear legal duty to prosecute those charges.
A. Motion to Strike
{¶ 11} As a preliminary matter, we address Rankin’s motion to strike.
Rankin argues that appellees’ merit brief violates S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.03(B) because in
it, appellees “fail[ed] to address propositions of law” as he had enumerated them in
his merit brief and instead “ma[de] up their own non-responsive propositions of
law and avoid[ed] [his].” Rankin contends that he asserted four “propositions of
law” in his brief but that appellees instead addressed two different and unrelated
points. He claims that to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.03(B), appellees’ brief
“would first have to correspond & answer [his] contentions by way of heading [his]
propositions of law.”
{¶ 12} Rankin’s motion lacks merit. First, the language of the applicable
rule does not support Rankin’s interpretation. This court has interpreted
S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.03(B)(1) as requiring that an appellee’s brief “address each
‘contention,’ not each ‘proposition of law.’ ” Rance v. Watson, 2022-Ohio-1822,
¶ 9. Appellees in this case have done so. Second, even assuming for the sake of
argument some deficiency in appellees’ merit brief, this court has generally
5
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
“declined to strike a brief when its shortcomings have not prejudiced the opposing
party’s ability to file a responsive brief or hindered this court’s ability to decide the
case,” State ex rel. Sultaana v. Mansfield Corr. Inst., 2023-Ohio-1177, ¶ 13, citing
State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd.
of Trustees, 2006-Ohio-903, ¶ 14. Rankin’s motion to strike fails to establish that
any alleged shortcomings in appellees’ merit brief have prejudiced his ability to file
his reply brief or hindered this court’s ability to decide the case.
{¶ 13} We deny Rankin’s motion to strike.
B. Amended Petition
{¶ 14} Rankin argues on appeal that appellees should have prosecuted
Judge Gabbert and the witness who testified against Rankin for the charges alleged
in the private-citizen affidavit Rankin filed. As noted above, Rankin alleged in the
affidavit that the prosecution’s witness committed perjury when testifying against
Rankin, that Judge Gabbert falsely stated during trial that a police report was not a
public record, and that the judge violated his oath of office by refusing to admit the
report into evidence.
1. Rankin does not have a clear legal right to the requested relief
{¶ 15} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Rankin must show a clear legal
right to prosecution of the charges alleged in his private-citizen affidavit. See
Casey, 2023-Ohio-2264, at ¶ 15. However, the allegations asserted in the amended
petition do not establish such a right. This court has consistently held that “‘R.C.
2935.09 does not mandate prosecution of all offenses charged by affidavit.’ ” State
ex rel. Boylen v. Harmon, 2006-Ohio-7, ¶ 6, quoting State ex rel. Evans v.
Columbus Dept. of Law, 1998-Ohio-128, ¶ 5. Thus, Rankin’s filing of a private-
citizen affidavit under R.C. 2935.09 does not confer on him a right to prosecution
of the alleged offenses. Rankin has not established a clear legal right to the
requested relief.
6
January Term, 2025
2. Appellees do not have a clear legal duty to provide the requested relief
{¶ 16} Rankin’s failure to satisfy the first element of entitlement to a writ
of mandamus defeats his claim. But even if Rankin could show a clear legal right
to the relief he requests, he would also have to show that appellees have a clear
legal duty to bring the criminal charges alleged in his private-citizen affidavit. See
Casey at ¶ 15. However, Rankin’s allegations do not prove that such a duty exists.
It is well established that “a prosecutor has no clear duty to prosecute an offense
alleged in a [private-citizen] affidavit.” A.N., 2021-Ohio-2071, at ¶ 9; accord State
ex rel. Capron v. Dattilio, 2016-Ohio-1504, ¶ 4; see also Bunting, 2016-Ohio-5781,
at ¶ 18 (holding that prosecutor had no clear duty to prosecute crime alleged in
private-citizen affidavit). R.C. 2935.10(A) prescribes the procedure to be followed
once a private citizen has submitted an affidavit alleging a felony. Unless there is
reason to believe that the affidavit lacks merit or was not filed in good faith, the
statute requires either that a warrant be issued for the alleged offender’s arrest or
that the matter be referred to the prosecuting attorney for investigation. R.C.
2935.10(A); see also State ex rel. Strothers v. Turner, 1997-Ohio-154, ¶ 7
(summarizing procedure to be followed once a private-citizen affidavit has been
filed). The statute does not impose on a prosecuting attorney a duty to prosecute
charges alleged in a private-citizen affidavit. In sum, neither the allegations in
Rankin’s amended petition nor the plain language of the statute establish a clear
legal duty on the part of one or both of the appellees to provide the requested relief.
III. CONCLUSION
{¶ 17} In light of the foregoing, by failing to show a clear legal right to the
requested relief and a clear legal duty on appellees’ part to provide it, Rankin has
failed to state a claim that would entitle him to a writ of mandamus. We affirm the
Fourth District Court of Appeals’ judgment dismissing Rankin’s amended petition
for a writ of mandamus and we deny his motion to strike appellees’ merit brief.
Judgment affirmed.
7
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
__________________
Bryan Rankin, pro se.
Engel & Martin, L.L.C., and Joshua Adam Engel, for appellees.
________________________
8