
    The State ex rel. Sevayega, Appellant, v. McMonagle, Judge, Appellee.
    [Cite as State ex rel. Sevayega v. McMonagle, 122 Ohio St.3d 54, 2009-Ohio-2367.]
    (No. 2009-0106
    Submitted May 19, 2009
    Decided May 28, 2009.)
    Reginald D. Sevayega, pro se.
   Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the complaint of appellant, Reginald D. Sevayega, for a writ of procedendo. A writ of procedendo will not issue to compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed. State ex rel. Howard v. Show, 102 Ohio St.3d 423, 2004-Ohio-3652, 811 N.E.2d 1128, ¶ 9. Moreover, insofar as Sevayega contests the propriety of the ruling he received on his postconviction motion, he had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by way of appeal. Extraordinary relief in procedendo will not be granted if there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. George v. Burnside, 118 Ohio St.3d 406, 2008-Ohio-2702, 889 N.E.2d 533, ¶ 7.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Pamela Bolton, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

D. Jim Brady, amicus curiae.  