DocketNumber: Court of Appeals No. L-99-1142.
Judges: HANDWORK, P.J.
Filed Date: 5/17/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
This matter is before the court on the petition of relator, Thomas S. Miller, who requests that this court issue a writ of mandamus, pursuant to R.C.
As noted by the Ohio Supreme Court in State ex. rel.Viox Builders, Inc. v. Lancaster (1989),
"To prevail in mandamus, relator must demonstrate that:
(1) it has a clear right to the relief requested, (2) respondents are under a clear legal duty to perform the requested act, and (3) relator has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law." (Citation omitted.)
When a relator fails to fulfill any of these requirements, the writ will not lie. State ex rel. Taxpayers League of N.Ridgeville v. Noll (1984),
An extraordinary remedy such as mandamus is only available when the usual forms of procedure are incapable of affording relief. State ex rel. Woodbury v. Spitler (1973),
"It is firmly established that the writ of mandamus will not issue ``* * * where the relator has or had available a clear, plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.' (Citations omitted.) Moreover, it is axiomatic that a `` * * * discretionary right of appeal * * * [constitutes] a sufficiently plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.' (Citation omitted.)"
Because an appeal is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law to address relator's jail time credit issue, a writ of mandamus will not issue.
Accordingly, relator's petition in mandamus is found not well-taken and is denied. The petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed at relator's costs. It is so ordered.
WRIT DISMISSED.