[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 

9

_________________