[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e 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 f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 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.

S LIP O PINION N O
. 2020-O HIO -999
T HE S TATE EX REL
. J OHNSON , A PPELLANT , v . B UREAU OF S ENTENCE C OMPUTATION , A PPELLEE . [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e 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 cl aim 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 pr ivity 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. )
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals fo r Franklin County, No. 18AP-351,
2018-Ohio-4338.

________________S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Appellant, Ronald G. Johnson, app eals 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 w e 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 manslaught er 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 Hab eas Corpus,” naming appellee, Bureau of Senten ce Computation (“BSC”), as res pondent. He alleges that BSC is illegally running portions of his definite sentences consecutively to his original indefinite sentence, causing him to serve two o f 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 fo r lack of jurisdiction because habeas corpus will lie only in the county where the petitioner is bein g held, R.C. 2725.03,
and Johnson is incarcerated at th e Northeast Correctional Facil ity, in Mahoning County. The motion also noted that the proper respondent to Jo hnson’s habeas corpus petition was the warden of the Northeast Correctional Ce nter, not BSC. In response, Johnson filed a motion to amend his complaint to remo ve the habeas corpus claim, leaving only the motion to vacate the judgments. {¶ 5} The magistrate agreed that the Tenth District lacked jurisdicti on to consider the habeas corpus complaint. Treating Johnson’s motio n as a request forJanuary Term, 2020

3 mandamus relief, and c iting our decision in Johnson v. Moore , 149 Ohio St.3d 716, 2017-Ohio-2792, 77 N.E.3d 967, she c oncluded 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 denie d 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 recommendat ion, dismissed the habeas corpus portion of the compl aint, 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 cour t of competent jurisdiction * * * is a complete bar to any subsequent action o n the same claim or cause of action between the par ties or those in privity with th em.’ ” (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 appea l, and it is an argument he has unsuccessfully litigated more than once.
Johnson’s other cases {¶ 9} On September 24, 2012, Johnson file d a complaint in the Frankli n County Court of Common Pleas aga inst the Department of Rehabili tation and Correction (“DRC”), seeking a wr it of mandamus to compel the co rrection of his sentences. He alleged that DRC was illegally running his defin ite sentencesS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 consecutively to his original indefinite sentence, causing him to serve the definite terms twice. On January 10, 2013, t hat court dism issed the com plaint. 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 Appeal s for a writ of habeas corpus, again disputing
whether his definite sentences s hould 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. T he 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 o f different consecutive sentences that cannot be encompassed within the sen tence that he had received earlier in Montgomery County”). {¶ 11} In December 2015, Johnson filed an original action for a writ o f mandamus in this court, again challenging the decision to run h is definite sentences consecutively to his indefinite sentence. We sua sponte dismis sed 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 t o issue a judgment entry vacating his indefi nite prison term as “fully se rved” in order to
remove the “double terms” his com plaint alleged he was being fo rced 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, base d on the same legal theory, he filed a complaint i n 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 co urt ofJanuary Term, 2020

5 appeals dismissed the complaint for failure to file an affidavi t 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 cha llenge 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 bas ed 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, w e held that “Johnson’s petition was properly di smissed because it fails to state a claim,” once again determining that BSC correctly calculated Johnson’s sente nce and that he was
therefore not entitled t o immediate release. Id . at ¶ 7. {¶ 14} In March 2016, Johnson filed an ori ginal action in the Twelfth District Court of App eals against the Madison County Court of C ommon Pleas for monetary damages, alleging false imprisonment because he was be ing 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 wri t 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 virtua lly 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-credi t 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, 201 2).S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

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 Cour t of Common Pleas to vacate his Madison County sentences, again o n 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 unsuccessf ully 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 actio ns filed by Johnson, all a sserting 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 cor pus). A fifth complaint for a writ of mandamus, seeking records from BSC in s upport 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 t he res judicata issue, Johnson de votes 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 cl aim, 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.3dJanuary Term, 2020

7 676, as have numerous intermediat e appellate courts. The eleme nt of privity is satisfied because DRC, of which BSC is a division, is in privit y 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 judg ment 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 sancti on a person who signs “an appeal or other action [that] is frivolous or is pros ecuted for delay, harassment, or any other imprope r purpose.” And S.Ct.Prac.R. 4 .03(B) provides that if a party “habitually, pe rsistently, and without reasonab le 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 argu ments that we have already rejected, coupled with his extensive history of fruitle ss and duplicative original actions, Johnson is the quintessential example of a ve xatious litigator. {¶ 21} As shown above, Johnson has filed 22 original actions in this c ourt alone since the beginning of 2013; 7 of those original actions have been filed in just the past 18 months. We dismi ssed 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, 2016-073 4, 2016- 0737, 2016-0738, 2016-0740, 2018-1449, 2018-1695, 2018-1716, 20 18-1808, 2018-1846, 2019-0832, 2019-0833. But our assessment of a litig ant’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, almos t all his arguments are directly on the same issue. {¶ 22} There is a cost, internal to Ohi o’s court system but also exter nal to the state as a whole when the legal process is abused in a mann er similar toS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

8 Johnson’s repeated filings. We mu st take into account the numb er of hours spent within the court system by the justices, law clerks, filing cle rks, and other court personnel, as well as county prosecutors and their employees, t hat 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 un equivocally 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 du e 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 Johnso n. 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 vex atious 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’C ONNOR , C.J., and F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and
S TEWART , JJ., concur.
K ENNEDY , J., concurs in part and disse nts in part and would not declar e appellant to be a vex atious litigator.

_________________ Ronald G. Johnson, pro se. Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Stephanie L. Watson, Principal Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.January Term, 2020

9 _________________