COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72254 : : STATE OF OHIO EX REL. : PETITION FOR WRIT OF ORSINO IACOVONE : MANDAMUS : Relator : : MOTION NO. 84274 -vs- : : GERALD E. FUERST : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION CLERK OF COURTS : CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO : : Respondent : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JULY 3, 1997 JUDGMENT: DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Relator: For Respondent: ORSINO IACOVONE, Pro Se STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, No. 304-050 Cuyahoga County Prosecutor So. Ohio Correctional Inst. DIANE SMILANICK, Assistant P. O. Box 45699 County Prosecutor Lucasville, Ohio 45699-0001 Justice Center, Courts Tower 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- JAMES D. SWEENEY, C.J.: On March 31, 1997, relator, Orsino Iacovone, commenced this mandamus action against respondent, Gerald Fuerst, Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts, to compel the clerk to send him a copy of the judgment entry deciding relator's post-conviction petition in the underlying case, State of Ohio v. Orsino Iacovone, Cuyahoga Cty. C.P. Case No. CR-320647 and to explain the "back dating/filing discrepancy" on the docket. On April 29, 1997, the clerk, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, moved for summary judgment. Mr. Iacovone never filed a response. For the following reasons, this court grants the clerk's motion for summary judgment and dismisses this writ action. Mr. Iacovone alleges that on September 20, 1996, he filed a post-conviction petition in the underlying case. On October 1, 1996, the state moved to dismiss the petition. On October 9, he sought to amend his petition, but on the same day the court granted the motion to dismiss. On October 21, 1996, Mr. Iacovone moved for summary judgment on his petition; he claims that he never received a copy of the entry dismissing his petition. Moreover, the clerk put the court's October 9, 1996 entry on the docket after he put Mr. Iacovone's motion for summary judgment on the docket. Thus, Mr. Iacovone demands a copy of the entry deciding the post- conviction petition and an explanation about how things are put on the docket. Attached to the clerk's motion for summary judgment is a certified copy of the court's findings of fact and conclusions of -3- law deciding Mr. Iacovone's post-conviction petition in the under- lying case; this decision's certificate of service indicated a copy was sent to Mr. Iacovone. Also the prosecutor would have sent a copy to him with the motion for summary judgment. Thus, this claim is moot, because he has received the requested relief, a copy of the court's decision. As to Mr. Iacovone's second claim that the clerk explain how and when items are entered on the docket, he has not established his clear legal right to such relief, nor has he established a clear legal duty on the part of the clerk to make such an explana- tion. He cites no authority for either proposition. The requisites for mandamus are well established: the relator must establish (1) that he has a clear legal right to the relief requested; (2) that the respondent has a clear legal duty to perform the requested relief; and (3) that there is no adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Ney v. Niehuas (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 118, 515 N.E.2d 914. Moreover, "the issuance of a writ of mandamus rests, to a considerable extent at least, within the sound discre- tion of the court ***." State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 161, 228 N.E.2d 631. A court exercising the extraordinary power of mandamus will take into consideration the facts and circumstances existing at the time it determines whether to issue a peremptory writ. Among the facts and circumstances which the court will consider are the applicant's rights, the interests of third persons, the importance or unimportance of the case, the applicant's conduct, the equity and justice of the relator's case, public policy and the public's interest ***. -4- 11 Ohio St.2d at 162. See also, State ex rel. Bennett v. Lime (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 62, 378 N.E.2d 152; State ex rel. Mettler v. Stratton (1941), 139 Ohio St. 86, 38 N.E.2d 393. Moreover, mandamus is not to be issued in doubtful cases or when the law is not clear. State ex rel. Shafer v. Ohio Turnpike Commission (1953), 159 Ohio St. 581, 113 N.E.2d 14; State ex rel. Connole v. Cleveland Board of Education (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 43, 621 N.E.2d 850; State ex rel. Goldsberry v. Weir (1978), 60 Ohio App.2d 149, 395 N.E.2d 901; State ex rel. Dayton-Oakwood Press v. Dissinger (1940), 32 Ohio Law Abs. 308. As the Supreme Court of Ohio stated in State ex rel. Taylor v. Glasser (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 165, 166, 364 N.E.2d 1: "Mandamus and prohibition are extraordinary remedies, to be issued with great caution and discretion and only when the way is clear." In the present case because Mr. Iacovone has not established a clear legal right or a clear legal duty to an explanation, the way is far from clear, and this court declines to issue the writ. Even under R.C. 149.43, the Ohio Public Records Act, there is no duty to create a record to satisfy a demand for information. State ex rel. Fant v. Mengel (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 197, 580 N.E.2d 1085. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and this writ action is dismissed. Relator to pay costs. PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J., CONCURS -5- .