Case Title: State ex rel. Johnson v. Bureau of Sentence Computation

Citation: 2020-Ohio-999

Docket Number: 2018-1630

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2020-03-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Johnson v. Bur. of Sentence Computation, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-999.] 
 
 
 
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. 2020-OHIO-999 
THE STATE EX REL. JOHNSON, APPELLANT, v. BUREAU OF SENTENCE 
COMPUTATION, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Johnson v. Bur. of Sentence Computation, Slip 
Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-999.] 
Mandamus—Res judicata—Appellant’s claim against the Bureau of Sentence 
Computation, a division of the Department of Rehabilitation and 
Correction, barred in light of previous rulings on the same claim in cases 
between appellant and parties in privity with the Department of 
Rehabilitation and Correction—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed—
Appellant declared a vexatious litigator. 
(No. 2018-1630—Submitted April 23, 2019—Decided March 19, 2020.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 18AP-351,  
2018-Ohio-4338. 
________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Ronald G. Johnson, appeals the decision of the Tenth 
District Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and 
denying his complaint for a writ of mandamus.  We affirm, and we also declare 
Johnson a vexatious litigator. 
Background 
{¶ 2} In February 1987, Johnson was sentenced to an indefinite prison term 
of 7-to-25 years after he was convicted of voluntary manslaughter with a firearm 
specification in Montgomery County.  State v. Johnson, Montgomery C.P. case No. 
86-CR-2584.  While released on parole, he was convicted of new offenses in 
Fayette, Adams, Madison, Highland, and Montgomery counties and received 
multiple definite prison sentences. 
{¶ 3} On May 18, 2018, Johnson filed a pleading in the Tenth District Court 
of Appeals captioned “Motion to Vacate Judgments/Motion for Habeas Corpus,” 
naming appellee, Bureau of Sentence Computation (“BSC”), as respondent.  He 
alleges that BSC is illegally running portions of his definite sentences consecutively 
to his original indefinite sentence, causing him to serve two of the definite terms 
twice and thereby extending his prison sentence to August 2024 when he should 
have been released in June 2018.   
 
{¶ 4} BSC filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because habeas 
corpus will lie only in the county where the petitioner is being held, R.C. 2725.03, 
and Johnson is incarcerated at the Northeast Correctional Facility, in Mahoning 
County.  The motion also noted that the proper respondent to Johnson’s habeas 
corpus petition was the warden of the Northeast Correctional Center, not BSC.  In 
response, Johnson filed a motion to amend his complaint to remove the habeas 
corpus claim, leaving only the motion to vacate the judgments. 
{¶ 5} The magistrate agreed that the Tenth District lacked jurisdiction to 
consider the habeas corpus complaint.  Treating Johnson’s motion as a request for 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
mandamus relief, and citing our decision in Johnson v. Moore, 149 Ohio St.3d 716, 
2017-Ohio-2792, 77 N.E.3d 967, she concluded that the court of appeals lacked 
jurisdiction over his claim against BSC for miscalculating his sentence and that his 
claim was barred by res judicata, and therefore she recommended dismissal of the 
case.  2018-Ohio-4338, ¶ 19-21.  In a separate entry, she denied the motion to 
amend. 
{¶ 6} Johnson filed objections to the magistrate’s recommendation, in 
which he largely reargued the merits of his sentencing argument.  On October 25, 
2018, the court of appeals adopted the magistrate’s recommendation, dismissed the 
habeas corpus portion of the complaint, and denied the writ of mandamus.  Id. at  
¶ 5-7. 
{¶ 7} On November 14, 2018, Johnson filed a notice of appeal in this court.  
In its merit brief, BSC asks us to declare Johnson a vexatious litigator, pursuant to 
S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03. 
Analysis 
{¶ 8} The doctrine of res judicata provides that a “ ‘final judgment or decree 
rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent 
jurisdiction * * * is a complete bar to any subsequent action on the same claim or 
cause of action between the parties or those in privity with them.’ ” (Ellipsis in 
Grava.) Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 381, 653 N.E.2d 226 (1995), 
quoting Norwood v. McDonald, 142 Ohio St. 299, 52 N.E.2d 67 (1943), paragraph 
one of the syllabus.  Johnson raises one argument in this appeal, and it is an 
argument he has unsuccessfully litigated more than once. 
Johnson’s other cases 
{¶ 9} On September 24, 2012, Johnson filed a complaint in the Franklin 
County Court of Common Pleas against the Department of Rehabilitation and 
Correction (“DRC”), seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the correction of his 
sentences.  He alleged that DRC was illegally running his definite sentences 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
consecutively to his original indefinite sentence, causing him to serve the definite 
terms twice.  On January 10, 2013, that court dismissed the complaint.  Johnson v. 
Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Franklin C.P. No. 12 CV 11978, 2013 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 
10982 (Jan. 10, 2013). 
{¶ 10} Two months later, on March 1, 2013, Johnson filed a petition in the 
Twelfth District Court of Appeals for a writ of habeas corpus, again disputing 
whether his definite sentences should run consecutively to his indefinite sentence.  
He also alleged that he was entitled to immediate release based on jail-time credit 
that he claimed he was owed.  The court of appeals granted the respondent’s motion 
to dismiss, Johnson v. Crutchfield, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2013-03-019 (July 
31, 2013), and we affirmed, Johnson v. Crutchfield, 140 Ohio St.3d 485, 2014-
Ohio-3653, 20 N.E.3d 676, ¶ 7 (“Johnson has received a number of different 
consecutive sentences that cannot be encompassed within the sentence that he had 
received earlier in Montgomery County”). 
{¶ 11} In December 2015, Johnson filed an original action for a writ of 
mandamus in this court, again challenging the decision to run his definite sentences 
consecutively to his indefinite sentence.  We sua sponte dismissed the complaint.  
Johnson v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 145 Ohio St.3d 1419, 2016-Ohio-1173, 47 
N.E.3d 164. 
{¶ 12} In January 2016, Johnson filed a complaint in this court for a writ of 
procedendo to compel the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court to issue a 
judgment entry vacating his indefinite prison term as “fully served” in order to 
remove the “double terms” his complaint alleged he was being forced to serve.  See 
Johnson v. State, 145 Ohio St.3d 1440, 2016-Ohio-1596, 48 N.E.3d 580.  We again 
dismissed the complaint.  Id.  Also in January 2016, based on the same legal theory, 
he filed a complaint in the Tenth District Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus 
ordering the DRC to “correct his sentence.”  State ex rel. Johnson v. Dept. of Rehab. 
& Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 16AP-69, 2016-Ohio-5424, ¶ 1.  The court of 
January Term, 2020 
 
5
appeals dismissed the complaint for failure to file an affidavit of prior civil actions, 
as required by R.C. 2969.25(A).  Id. at ¶ 4, 21. 
{¶ 13} In February 2016, Johnson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 
in the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, based on the same challenge to the length 
of his sentences.  The court of appeals dismissed the petition based on res judicata.  
Johnson v. Moore, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2016-02-011 (Apr. 14, 2016).1  We 
affirmed, but not based on res judicata.  Johnson v. Moore, 149 Ohio St.3d 716, 
2017-Ohio-2792, 77 N.E.3d 967, ¶ 6 (“Res judicata is not among the defenses that 
may be raised in a Civ.R. 12(B) motion to dismiss”).  Rather, we held that 
“Johnson’s petition was properly dismissed because it fails to state a claim,” once 
again determining that BSC correctly calculated Johnson’s sentence and that he was 
therefore not entitled to immediate release.  Id. at ¶ 7. 
{¶ 14} In March 2016, Johnson filed an original action in the Twelfth 
District Court of Appeals against the Madison County Court of Common Pleas for 
monetary damages, alleging false imprisonment because he was being held to serve 
the same sentences twice.  The court of appeals dismissed, Johnson v. Madison Cty. 
Court of Common Pleas, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2016-03-013 (July 8, 2016), 
and we affirmed, Johnson v. Madison Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 149 Ohio St.3d 
730, 2017-Ohio-2805, 77 N.E.3d 978, ¶ 8. 
{¶ 15} In April 2016, Johnson filed a petition in this court for a writ of 
habeas corpus, based on the same claim regarding his sentences.  He also requested, 
among other things, an “alternative writ of mandamus” to compel a recalculation 
of his maximum-sentence release date based on another jail-time-credit claim.2  We 
                                                 
1. According to the court of appeals, Johnson had “filed virtually the same habeas corpus petition 
in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas on December 3, 2015,” which the common pleas 
court had dismissed roughly seven weeks later.  Id. at 1. 
2. Johnson has unsuccessfully litigated similar jail-time-credit claims in at least three other lawsuits.  
See State v. Johnson, 4th Dist. Highland No. 16CA26, 2017-Ohio-4213, ¶ 10, 22; State v. Johnson, 
4th Dist. Adams No. 13CA988, 2014-Ohio-3027, ¶ 6; Johnson v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Franklin 
C.P. No. 12 CV 10531, 2012 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 17837 (Oct. 25, 2012). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
dismissed the complaint.  Johnson v. Mohr, 146 Ohio St.3d 1466, 2016-Ohio-5108, 
54 N.E.3d 1266. 
{¶ 16} In July 2018, Johnson filed a motion in the Madison County Court 
of Common Pleas to vacate his Madison County sentences, again on the theory that 
they could not be imposed consecutively to his original 7-to-25-year sentence from 
Montgomery County.  In affirming the denial of his motion, the court of appeals 
noted that Johnson had unsuccessfully filed the same motion in Madison County in 
2012, 2013, and 2015.  State v. Johnson, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2018-07-021, 
2019-Ohio-445, ¶ 1. 
{¶ 17} On February 13, 2019, we dismissed four separate original actions 
filed by Johnson, all asserting the same legal theory regarding the computation of 
his sentences.  Johnson v. Bur. of Sentence Computation, 154 Ohio St.3d 1506, 
2019-Ohio-470, 116 N.E.3d 1286 (mandamus); Johnson v. Singer, 154 Ohio St.3d 
1506, 2019-Ohio-470, 116 N.E.3d 1286 (mandamus); Johnson v. LaRose, 154 Ohio 
St.3d 1507, 2019-Ohio-470, 116 N.E.3d 1287 (habeas corpus); Johnson v. LaRose, 
154 Ohio St.3d 1507, 2019-Ohio-470, 116 N.E.3d 1286 (habeas corpus).  A fifth 
complaint for a writ of mandamus, seeking records from BSC in support of his case, 
was dismissed on December 18, 2018.  Johnson v. Bur. of Sentence Computation, 
154 Ohio St.3d 1448, 2018-Ohio-5081, 113 N.E.3d 555. 
Res judicata and privity 
{¶ 18} Here, rather than respond to the res judicata issue, Johnson devotes 
his appellate brief to arguing the merits of his mandamus claim.  He also objects to 
the magistrate’s decision denying his motion for leave to amend.  But the proposed 
amended complaint, which merely deleted the defective habeas claim, would not 
have cured the res judicata problem. 
{¶ 19} As noted above, we have previously ruled on the merits of these 
claims in at least two prior actions, Moore, 149 Ohio St.3d 716, 2017-Ohio-2792, 
77 N.E.3d 967, and Crutchfield, 140 Ohio St.3d 485, 2014-Ohio-3653, 20 N.E.3d 
January Term, 2020 
 
7
676, as have numerous intermediate appellate courts.  The element of privity is 
satisfied because DRC, of which BSC is a division, is in privity with its prison 
wardens, who were the respondents in Moore and Crutchfield.  See Stroud v. Dept. 
of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 03AP-139, 2004-Ohio-580, ¶ 22-23.  
We therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
BSC request that Johnson be declared a vexatious litigator 
{¶ 20} In its brief to this court, BSC asks that Johnson be declared a 
vexatious litigator.  Under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(A), we may sanction a person who 
signs “an appeal or other action [that] is frivolous or is prosecuted for delay, 
harassment, or any other improper purpose.”  And S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B) provides 
that if a party “habitually, persistently, and without reasonable cause engages in 
frivolous conduct under division (A),” then we may declare such person a vexatious 
litigator and “impose filing restrictions on the party.”  Given Johnson’s extensive 
history of repetitious filings, in which he has reasserted arguments that we have 
already rejected, coupled with his extensive history of fruitless and duplicative 
original actions, Johnson is the quintessential example of a vexatious litigator. 
{¶ 21} As shown above, Johnson has filed 22 original actions in this court 
alone since the beginning of 2013; 7 of those original actions have been filed in just 
the past 18 months.  We dismissed every one of those cases.  See Supreme Court 
case Nos. 2013-0785, 2015-2002, 2016-0135, 2016-0136, 2016-0193, 2016-0196, 
2016-0528, 2016-0589, 2016-0602, 2016-0653, 2016-0733, 2016-0734, 2016-
0737, 2016-0738, 2016-0740, 2018-1449, 2018-1695, 2018-1716, 2018-1808, 
2018-1846, 2019-0832, 2019-0833.  But our assessment of a litigant’s 
vexatiousness is not based solely on the number of cases he has filed, but also upon 
the repetitive arguments raised.  And in Johnson’s cases, almost all his arguments 
are directly on the same issue. 
{¶ 22} There is a cost, internal to Ohio’s court system but also external to 
the state as a whole when the legal process is abused in a manner similar to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
Johnson’s repeated filings.  We must take into account the number of hours spent 
within the court system by the justices, law clerks, filing clerks, and other court 
personnel, as well as county prosecutors and their employees, that must handle and 
respond to all these lawsuits and motions. 
{¶ 23} Moreover, vexatious litigation takes time away from prompt 
handling of other meritorious cases, which is neither fair nor just to other litigants 
in Ohio’s court system.  Ohio litigants are specifically and unequivocally entitled 
under our state constitution to justice without delay.  Ohio Constitution, Article I, 
Section 16 (“All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in 
his land, goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and 
shall have justice administered without denial or delay”).  We owe a duty to the 
citizens of Ohio to supervise properly and fairly the courts of the state for the benefit 
of all its citizens, not just the most prolific filers such as Johnson.  See Ohio 
Constitution, Article IV, Section 5.  Today, that duty compels us to put an end to 
Johnson’s frivolous, repeated litigation by declaring him a vexatious litigator in 
accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03. 
{¶ 24} Pursuant to this designation, Johnson is hereby prohibited from 
instituting or continuing legal proceedings in this court on a pro se basis unless he 
first seeks and obtains leave of court to do so.  See S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B). 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and 
STEWART, JJ., concur. 
KENNEDY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would not declare 
appellant to be a vexatious litigator. 
_________________ 
Ronald G. Johnson, pro se. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Stephanie L. Watson, Principal Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
January Term, 2020