[Cite as Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. , 2023

- Ohio

- 3167.]

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

RONALD G. JOHNSON

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION

Defendant Case No. 2023

- 00328AD
Deputy Clerk Holly True Shaver

MEMORANDUM DECISION

{¶1} On May 4, 2023
, Ron ald Johnso n (“plaintiff”) , a n i nmate, filed a complaint against defendant, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”). On May 15, 2023, plaintiff was ordered to file a completed form complaint pursuant to R.C. 2743.10. On May 25, 2023, pla intiff fil ed an amended comp l ai nt, wherein p laintiff asserted that his prison sen t ence was incorrec tly c alculated an d sought damages in the

amoun t of $8,700.00 for false imprisonment he will serve “ any day after August 19, 202 3,
of unauthorized confinement unt il 8/19/2024 ”

. Plaintif f ’ s amended complaint ¶ 11.
Plaintiff ’ s amended complaint stated that he was sentenced to 7

- 25 years in 1978 and

was s enten ced to 12 years in 2006. Plaintiff asserts that h is jail

- time credit has been
cal culated incorrectly an d that he will serve additio nal time if t his is not corrected. Plaintiff was not required to pay the filing fee. {¶2} O n June 2, 2023, ODRC filed a motion for summary judgment requesting
the clerk deny this case on the b as is o f r es jud icata . In its motion
, de fendant stated that plainti ff ha s litigated this exact claim several times in the past ; namely in State ex r el.
Johnson v. Bur

. of Sen t ence Com

putation
, 159 Ohio St. 3d 552
, 2020

- Ohio

- 999, 152
N .E. 3d 251 and Johnson v. Ohi o B ur

. of Sentence Computation
, 10 th D ist. Franklin No.
20AP

- 312
, 2021

- Ohio

- 491

. {¶3} On June 14, 2023, plaintiff filed a memoran dum in opposition to defend an t ’ s motion for summary judgment and a cross m otion for summary ju dgment. Plai ntiff
asserted tha t this case i s different from his previ ous law s uits becaus e he is no tCase No. 2023

- 00328AD

- 2

- MEMORANDUM DECISION

challenging the sentence calculation but rath er brings this c laim because his jail time

ser ved w as not prop er ly deducted from his sentence. Plaint iff contend ed that he was entitled t o s ummary judgment b ased on the filing s in this c ase. {¶4} On Ju ly 2 5, 202 3
, plai ntiff filed a motion for decla ratory judgment and a motion for injunctive relief. On August 2
, 2023, pla intiff filed a mo tion “ fo r a hearing ” , and
a motion “ for judgment entry on c ross motion for summary judgment. ” {¶5} Moti o ns for summary ju dgme nt are reviewed under the standard se t forth in
Civ.R. 56 (C), which states, i n part: Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to int errogatori es, writt e n admissions, affid avit s, transcrip ts o f eviden ce, and wr itte n s tip ulations of fact, i f any, timel y filed in
the ac t io n, show that there i s no ge n uine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary ju dgme nt as a ma tter of l a w. No eviden ce or stip ulation may be c o nsidere d except a s st ate d i n this rule. {¶6} “[T] he mo ving pa rty bears the ini t ia l responsibil ity of inf ormi n g the t rial c ourt

o f the basis for the motion and identifying those portions of the record before t he trial c o urt
which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of m ater ial fa ct on a material e lemen t of th e nonmoving party ’ s claim.” Dres her v. Bur t , 7 5 Ohio S t.3d 280, 29 2 , 662 N.E.2d
264 (1996) . To meet this initial burden, the moving party must be able to po i nt to
evid entiary materials of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C ). Id

. at 292

- 293

. {¶7} If the m oving p arty meets its in i ti al burden, th e nonm o vin g pa r ty bears a

r eciproc al burden outlined in Civ.R. 56(E), which provides that “ an adverse part y may not rest up on the m ere allegations or denials of the party’ s plea ding s, but th e p arty’ s
respo nse , b y affidavit or as otherwise p r ov ided in this rule, m ust set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. ” It is well

- establis hed that it is not

a ppropriate to grant summary j udgment un less, {¶8} c onstruing the evi den ce most strong l y i n favor o f t he nonmoving
pa rt y :Case No. 2023

- 00328AD

- 3

- MEMORANDUM DECISION

(1) there is no ge nu ine iss u e of material fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3 ) reasona ble minds c an come to but one conclusion, that co nclusion being adve rse to the nonmoving part y. {¶9} Robinette v. Orthopedics, Inc

. , 10 th Dist. Franklin No. 97A P

- 1299, 1999 Ohio App. LE XIS 2038, 7 (1999). {¶10} Whether p laintiff’s claim is barred by the doc trine of res judica t a is a question of law. Daniel v. Will iams
, 10th Dist. F rank lin No . 17AP

- 203, 2014

- Ohio

- 273, ¶
1 8 (internal citations omit ted). The doctrine of res judicata encompasses both claim preclusion and issue preclusion. Id

. To promote “pri nciples o f finality and judicial economy by preventing endl ess relitigation o f an is sue upon which there was already a full or fair opportunity to be heard[,]” claim preclusion prevents the relitigation of the same cause of action and issue preclusion prev ents the relitigati o n of an issue that has been
decided in a prior action. I d. a t ¶ 18

- 19. {¶11} Claim preclusion applies when
, there is a prio r valid judgment on the merits; (2) the present action involves the same parties as the prior action (or the pa rties in the presen t action are in privity with the parties in the prior acti on); (3 ) t he present action raises
claim s that were or could have be en litigated in the prior action; and (4) both
actions arose out of the same transaction or occurrence.
Id. at ¶ 18. {¶12} I ssue precl u sion applies when the fact or issue (1) was a ctually and dire ctl y l itigated in the prior action, (2) was determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, and (3) the party against whom issue preclusion is asserted was a party to the pri or action (or the p a rty in the present action are in privity with the parties in the pr ior action). Dehlendorf
v. Ri tchey

, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP

- 87, 2012

- Ohio

- 5193, ¶ 14, quoting Thompson v. Wing , 70 Ohio St.3d 176, 183, 637 N.E.2d 917 (1994); Fort Fr ye Tea chers Assn

. OEA/NEA v. State Emp. Relations Bd. , 81 Ohio St.3d 392, 395, 69 2 N .E.2d 140 (1998) (“a fact or a point that was actually and directly at issue in a previous action, and was passed upon and determined by a court of competent jurisdictio n, may no t be drawn intoCase No. 2023

- 00328AD

- 4

- MEMORANDUM DECISION

question in a subsequent action between the same par ties or th eir privies, whether the

cause of action in the two actions be identical or different.”). {¶13} Assum ing arguendo that plaintiff ’ s claim that his jail time served was not
act ually and direct l y l itigat ed in the prior acti ons making issue pre clusion ina ppli cab le
, this claim could have been litigat ed and arose out of t he same transaction or occurrence as in any of his prior a ctions ; thus, res judicata still applies under the the o ry of cla im
pre clus i on. {¶14} In State ex. r

e l Johnson v. B ur

. of Sent

ence Comput

ati on , sup ra , the Supreme Cour t of Ohio held that plain tiff , Ronald Johnson, has brough t a claim about his sentence computation for the same sentences as in this case several times and the C ou rt
had “ p reviously ruled on the merits of t he se claim s i n a t least two pri or actions

. ” Id. at ¶
19. The court finds that t his satisf ies the first element of claim preclusion. {¶15} As to the second element, the Supre me Court found that the eleme nt of pri v i ty was sa tis fied because the B urea u of Sentence Computat io n i s a divisi on of ODRC

. Id. This court finds the same. {¶16} Mo vi ng to the third element, the claims in the p resent action mus t have been actually litigated o r could have been litigated in a previou s action fo r claim pre clusion to appl y

. Here, even if plai n tif f ’ s claim th at his jail time ser ved was not actually lit igated in the previous cases, it could have been because p laintiff ’ s Supreme Cour t case was
decided in 2020 ; plaintiff ’ s last se ntencing wa s i n 200 6 according t o plaintiff ’ s complaint. Therefore, the court finds th at the th ird element of claim pre clusion is met. {¶17} The fou rth and final e lement f or claim pre c l usion to appl y is t hat both plaintiff’s prior claim and the case a t bar ar ose from th e same tr ansaction o r occurrence

. The court finds that th is element is s ati sfied because both this case and pla i n t iff ’ s Supreme Court case involve the calculation of plaintiff’s pr ison term from the 1987 and
2006 se ntencings

. {¶18} Based upon the foregoing, t he clerk fin ds that there are no genuine issues as to any m at erial fact a nd that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, defen dant ’ s mo tion for su mmary judgment i s GRANTED and plaintiff ’ s claim
is DENIED. All remaining pending motions are DENI ED as MOOT.Case No. 2023

- 00328AD

- 5

- MEMORANDUM DECISION

RONALD G . JOHNSON

Plaintiff

v.

OH IO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION

Defendant Case No. 2023

- 00328AD
Deputy Clerk Holly True Shaver

ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATI VE DETERMINATION

{¶19} Having co n sidered all the evidence in the claim file
, an d for the reaso ns set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurr ently herewith, judgment is rendered in
favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff

.

HOLLY TRUE SHAVER Deputy Clerk Filed 8/8/23 Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/7/23