COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                           NO. 77008
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.        :    PETITION FOR WRIT OF
PAUL S. HENDERSON             :    MANDAMUS
                              :
               Relator        :    MOTION NO. 11108
                              :
          vs.                 :    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
                              :
TIMOTHY MCCORMICK, JUDGE      :
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS         :
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO         :
                              :
               Respondent     :
                              :
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION   :    NOVEMBER 4, 1999
JUDGMENT                 :    WRIT DISMISSED.
APPEARANCES:
For Relator              :    PAUL S. HENDERSON, Pro Se
                              4191 Eastway Road
                              South Euclid, Ohio 44121
For Respondent           :    WILLIAM D. MASON,
                                Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                              Justice Center, Courts Tower
                              1200 Ontario Street
                              Cleveland, Ohio 44113
JAMES M. PORTER, A.J.:
     On September 27, 1999, the relator, Paul Henderson, commenced
this  mandamus  action  against  the  respondent,  Judge  Timothy
McCormick, to compel the  judge to rule on an unspecified  motion
                               -2-
which Mr. Henderson filed  on August 12, 1999, in the  underlying
case, State of Ohio v. Paul Henderson, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas
Court Case No. CR-359651.  For the following reasons, this  court
sua sponte dismisses this writ action.
     The requisites  for mandamus are  well established: (1)  the
relator must have a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2)
the  respondent must  have  a clear  legal  duty to  perform  the
requested relief; and (3) there must be no adequate remedy at law.
Although mandamus  may be  used  to compel  a court  to  exercise
judgment or to discharge a function, it may not control  judicial
discretion, even if  that discretion is grossly abused. State  ex
rel. Ney v.  Niehaus (1987), 33 Ohio  St.3d 118, 515 N.E.2d  914.
Additionally, in mandamus a relator must plead specific facts  in
order to  avoid dismissal. State  ex rel.  Iacovone v.  Kaminiski
(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 189, 690  N.E.2d 4; State ex rel. Clark  v.
Lile (1997),  80 Ohio St.3d  220, 685 N.E.2d  535; State ex  rel.
Dehler v. Sutula (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 33, 656 N.E.2d 332; State ex
rel. Fain v. Summit County Adult Probation Department (1995),  71
Ohio St.3d 658, 646 N.E.2d 1113; State ex rel. Hickman v.  Capots
(1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 324, 544 N.E.2d 639.  Moreover, mandamus is
an extraordinary remedy which is to be exercised with caution and
only when the right  is clear.  It  should not issue in  doubtful
cases. State ex rel. Taylor v. Glasser (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 165,
364 N.E.2d  1; 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
                               -3-
850; State ex  rel. Dayton-Oakwood Press v. Dissinger (1940),  32
Ohio Law Abs. 308.
     In the present case Mr. Henderson does not specify the motion
for which  he seeks a ruling.   He merely states that he filed  a
motion on August 12, 1999.  The failure to plead sufficient facts
as to the nature of the motion and the corresponding  uncertainty
are fatal defects which alone would warrant dismissal.
     Additionally, the matter is moot.  A review of the docket in
the underlying case shows that on August 12, 1999, Mr.  Henderson
filed a  motion to vacate  payment of fines,  court costs and  of
restitution  requirements.  (A  copy of which  is attached.)   On
August 23,  1999, the respondent denied  that motion. (A copy  of
which is also attached.) The judge has fulfilled his duty, and Mr.
Henderson  has received  his requested  relief, a  ruling on  his
motion.  Thus, mandamus will not lie.
     The court further notes that Mr. Henderson did not  properly
caption his complaint. Civ.R. 10(A) requires that the addresses of
all the parties be listed in  the caption of the complaint.   Mr.
Henderson did  not do this.   The relator  failed to support  his
complaint with an affidavit  specifying the details of the  claim
as required by Local Rule  45(B)(1)(a).  State ex rel. Wilson  v.
Calabrese (Jan. 18, 1996),  Cuyahoga App. No. 70077,  unreported;
State ex rel. Smith v. McMonagle (July 17, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No.
70899,  unreported.    This   mandamus  action  was  also   filed
prematurely.  Sup.R.  40(A) provides that motions shall be  ruled
upon within one hundred and twenty days from the date of  filing.
                               -4-
Thus, a complaint in mandamus to compel a ruling on a motion which
has been pending approximately forty-five days is premature.  Even
the passing of one hundred and twenty days may still not compel a
mandamus to issue.  State ex rel. Rodgers v. Cuyahoga County Court
of Common Pleas (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 684, 615 N.E.2d 689.
     Accordingly, the court dismisses the relator's application for
a writ of mandamus and his request for an alternative writ.  Costs
assessed against the relator.
ANN DYKE, J., CONCURS.
                              JAMES M. PORTER,
                              ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
.