COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                        COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 71763
                                   :
                                   :
STATE OF OHIO EX REL.              :    PETITION FOR WRIT OF
TIMOTHY J. ADKINS                  :    MANDAMUS
                                   :
        Relator                    :
                                   :    MOTION NO. 79856
     -vs-                          :
                                   :
JUDGE WILLIAM E. AURELIUS          :    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
COMMON PLEAS COURT                 :
                                   :
        Respondent                 :
                                   :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION:                       MARCH 27, 1997
JUDGMENT:                          SUMMARY      JUDGMENT      FOR
RESPONDENT.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:
APPEARANCES:  
For Relator:                       For Respondent:
TIMOTHY J. ADKINS, Pro Se          STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES,
No. 197-260                          Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
Orient Correctional Institution    SHERRY F. MCCREARY, Assistant
P. O. Box 511                        County Prosecutor
Columbus, Ohio 43216               Justice Center, Courts Tower
                                   1200 Ontario Street
                                   Cleveland, Ohio 44113
                               -2-
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, P.
J.:
     Timothy J. Adkins, relator,  is seeking a writ of  mandamus to
compel  respondent,  Judge  William  E. Aurelius,  to  rule  on his
request for leave to file a motion for new trial and motion for new
trial, to prepare  a journal  entry, to make  findings of fact  and
conclusions of law, to hold an  evidentiary hearing, and to forward
the judgment to  him.   Respondent has moved  for summary  judgment
and, for the following reasons, we grant respondent's motion.
     Relator states in  his complaint, which was  filed on December
17,  1996, that he filed a  request for leave to  file a motion for
new trial and motion  for new trial on August 29,  1996.  He claims
respondent's failure to act is contrary to C.P. Sup. R. 6(A), which
requires that  all motions  be ruled  upon within  120  days.   The
Supreme  Court  of  Ohio  has  held,  however, that  the  Rules  of
Superintendence,  specifically  C.P. Sup.  R.  6(A), do  not create
rights in litigants for the  commencement of extraordinary actions.
State ex rel. Richard v.  Calabrese (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 193,  610
N.E.2d  1002;  State  ex rel.  Richard  v.  Wells  (May 21,  1993),
Cuyahoga App.  No. 65397, unreported.   Even  if C.P. Sup.  R. 6(A)
created  a  clear legal  duty  for respondent,  relator's complaint
would have been prematurely  filed since only 110 days  had elapsed
from the date his motions were filed.
     Moreover,  a  writ of  mandamus  will  not be  issued  when an
adequate  remedy at  law exists  for  obtaining the  relief sought.
R.C. 2731.05.   Relator has an adequate  remedy in this case  via a
                                -3-
petition for writ of  procedendo.  This court has held  that when a
dispositive  motion  has  been  filed  without  resolution  for  an
inordinate amount of time,  the writ of procedendo rather  than the
writ of mandamus is the more  appropriate remedy to pursue.   State
ex rel. Waddell  v. McMonagle  (July 12, 1995),  Cuyahoga App.  No.
68917, unreported, affirmed (1996),  75 Ohio St.3d 396, 662  N.E.2d
350.    Accordingly, respondent's  motion  for summary  judgment is
granted, albeit on different grounds.
     Judgment for respondent.  Costs to relator.
DAVID T. MATIA, J., CONCURS
                              __________________________________
.