
    The State ex rel. Barb, Appellant, v. Cuyahoga County Jury Commissioner, Appellee.
    [Cite as State ex rel. Barb v. Cuyahoga Cty. Jury Commr., 128 Ohio St.3d 528, 2011-Ohio-1914.]
    (No. 2011-0051
    Submitted April 19, 2011
    Decided April 26, 2011.)
    Herbert Barb Jr., pro se.
   Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the writ of mandamus sought by appellant, Herbert E. Barb Jr., for verdict forms and lists of prospective jurors in criminal cases involving his brother, inmate Danny Barb. Res judicata barred Herbert from instituting his own mandamus action seeking some of the same records that his brother requested because — as Danny’s designee — he was in privity with him. State ex rel. Barb v. Cuyahoga Cty. Jury Commr., 124 Ohio St.3d 238, 2010-Ohio-120, 921 N.E.2d 236; State ex rel. Roberson v. Mason, Cuyahoga App. No. 91783, 2009-Ohio-1884, 2009 WL 1089802, ¶ 8-9. And Danny cannot circumvent the requirement of R.C. 149.43(B)(8), which requires a finding by his sentencing judge or the judge’s successor that the requested information is necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim, by designating his brother to request the records for him. As the court of appeals concluded, “Herbert may not do indirectly what Danny is prohibited from doing directly.”

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Charles E. Hannan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.  