State ex rel. Bunting v. Styer (Slip Opinion), 147 Ohio St. 3d 462

Paul Bunting, serving an 18-year sentence, alleged that friend Thomas Weaver agreed to store Bunting’s motorcycle and later refused to return it beginning around 2008.
In May 2013 Bunting filed a citizen affidavit in New Philadelphia Municipal Court accusing Weaver of theft; the affidavit was referred to Tuscarawas County Prosecutor Ryan Styer.
The sheriff’s office investigated and reported in August 2013 that a barn fire had destroyed the motorcycle and found no evidence of criminal conduct by Weaver.
Prosecutor Styer declined to file charges; Bunting sued the prosecutor in mandamus seeking an order to investigate and prosecute Weaver.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals dismissed Bunting’s complaint (sua sponte on the merits); Bunting appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which affirmed the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor had a clear legal duty to investigate and prosecute after citizen affidavit	Bunting: R.C. 2935.09/2935.10 required Styer to conduct an independent investigation and prosecute	Styer: He reasonably relied on the sheriff’s investigation and has prosecutorial discretion not to charge	Held: No clear duty to prosecute; prosecutor may rely on law‑enforcement investigation and exercise discretion
Whether sua sponte dismissal without notice was improper	Bunting: Court of appeals should not have dismissed on the merits without permitting amendment or full briefing	Styer: Court had notice (untimely motion to dismiss filed) and complaint was one the relator could not prevail on	Held: Sua sponte dismissal was permissible where claimant obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged
Whether leave to amend under Civ.R. 15(A) was required before dismissal	Bunting: Court should have allowed amendment (citing Hanson)	Styer: No motion or tendered amended complaint was ever filed by Bunting	Held: Relief under Civ.R. 15(A) not triggered because Bunting never sought to amend
Whether the failure to prosecute amounted to an abuse of discretion	Bunting: Investigation relied on hearsay and was inadequate, so refusal to prosecute was abusive	Styer: Evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; decision was discretionary	Held: No abuse of discretion shown; prosecutor’s charging decision is discretionary and not compelled

State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 960 N.E.2d 452 (Ohio 2012) (mandamus elements; clear right, duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ronan, 918 N.E.2d 515 (Ohio 2009) (sua sponte dismissal appropriate when complaint frivolous or claimant cannot prevail)
State ex rel. Scott v. Cleveland, 859 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2006) (same principle for sua sponte dismissal)
State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland, 661 N.E.2d 180 (Ohio 1996) (prosecutorial charging decisions are discretionary)
State ex rel. Murr v. Meyer, 516 N.E.2d 234 (Ohio 1987) (mandamus to compel prosecution only when failure to prosecute is an abuse of discretion)
State ex rel. Evans v. Columbus Dept. of Law, 699 N.E.2d 60 (Ohio 1998) (R.C. 2935.09 does not mandate prosecution of every affidavit allegation)