[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Roberts v. Hatheway , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-4097.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O
. 2021-O HIO -4097
T HE S TATE EX REL
. R OBERTS , A PPELLANT , v . H ATHEWAY , 1 J UDGE , A PPELLEE .

[Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Roberts v. Hatheway , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-4097.] Mandamus—Procedendo—Petition for a wr it of mandamus and/or procedendo seeking to compel a trial-court judge to rule on a motion was properly dismissed by the appellate court bec ause the judge had already issued an entry dismissing the motion on res judicata grounds and petitioner had an adequate remedy at law through direct appeal of the motion’s dismissal— Court of appeals judgment affirmed. (No. 2021-0771—Submitted October 5, 2021—Decided November 23, 2 021.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-2100242.

__________________

1. Judge Alison Hatheway succeeded Judge Charles Kubicki Jr., who was originally named as the appellee. Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.06(B), Judge Hatheway is automatically substituted for former Judge Kubicki as a party to this action.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Appellant, Mallon Roberts, appeal s the judgment of the First Di strict Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus and/or a writ of procedendo ordering appellee, H amilton County Court of Common P leas Judge Alison Hatheway, to rule on his ju risdictional motion. We affi rm. {¶ 2} In June 2020, Roberts filed in t he Hamilton County Court of Com mon Pleas a “Motion Challenging Subj ect Matter Jurisdiction of Tria l Judge Pursuant to Sup.R. 4, Sup.R. 36, Hamilton County Lo cal Rule 7(E), O.R.C. 27 01.031.” {¶ 3} In April 2021, Roberts filed a pe tition in the court of appeals seeking
a writ of mandamus and/or a wr it of procedendo to compel Judge Hatheway to rule on his motion. Eight days after Roberts filed his petition wit h the court of appeals, Judge Hatheway issued an entry dismissing Roberts’s motion on r es judicata grounds. {¶ 4} In May 2021, the court of appeal s dismissed Roberts’s petition, determining that the procedendo claim was moot in light of Judg e Hatheway’s entry
and that a writ of mandamus was not the proper remedy to redres s Roberts’s alleged injury. Roberts the n filed this appeal. {¶ 5} “A writ of procedendo is appropria te when a court has either re fused to render a judgment or has unne cessarily delayed proceeding to judgment.” State
ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover , 84 Ohio St.3d 530, 532, 705 N.E.2d 1227 (1999). An action in procedendo becomes moot when the court performs the d uty requested. See State ex rel. Morgan v. Fais , 146 Ohio St.3d 428, 2016-Ohio-1564, 57 N.E.3d 1140, ¶ 4. Because the trial court has ruled on Roberts’s moti on, the court of appeals properly dismissed t he procedendo claim as moot. {¶ 6} Roberts’s request for a writ of mandamus is controlled by simil ar logic. Even assuming that a wr it of mandamus could provide rel ief beyond that afforded by a writ of procedendo, a “writ of mandamus will not issue to compel an act already performed.” State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court ofJanuary Term, 2021

3 Common Pleas , 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 279, 658 N.E.2d 273 (1996). Because the t rial court has performed t he act requested by Robe rts, mandamus cann ot lie. {¶ 7} To the extent Roberts attempts to use his petition to argue the merits of his underlying jurisdictional motion, he has an adequate rem edy by way of appeal to address any alleged e rror in the trial court’s ruling on that motion. See State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger , 99 Ohio St.3d 303, 2003-Ohio-3631, 791 N.E.2d 459, ¶ 8 (“neither a writ of pro cedendo nor a writ of mandamus will issue if an adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law”). {¶ 8} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
J udgment affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , S TEWART , and
B RUNNER , JJ., concur.
F ISCHER , J., not participating.

_________________ Mallon Roberts, pro se. Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton Count y Prosecuting Attorney, and Pa ula E. Adams, Assistant Prosecu ting Attorney, for appellee.

_________________