Yates asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ. For the following reasons, however, Yates’s claims lack merit.

First, as the court of appeals concluded, neither Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-261 nor any other administrative regulation imposes a clear legal duty on appellees to permit Yates to be given a polygraph examination at his request.

*84Second, as we held in State ex rel. Sheppard v. Koblentz (1962), 174 Ohio St. 120, 21 O.O.2d 384, 187 N.E.2d 40, syllabus, “[t]here is no clear legal duty on the part of [corrections officers] to permit a prisoner to subject himself to * * * a polygraph test in order to demonstrate his innocence of the crime for which he was convicted; and, the allowing of such test[ ] being strictly within the discretion of such officer[s], a writ of mandamus does not lie to compel such test[].”

Third, Yates did not establish any violation of his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. Because Yates has no constitutional or statutory right to parole, he has no similar right to earlier consideration of parole. State ex rel. Henderson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 267, 268, 690 N.E.2d 887, 888.

Finally, Yates should have filed a complaint or petition for a writ of mandamus instead of a “motion * * * in [the] form of appeal.” See State ex rel. Thomas v. Ghee (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 191, 193, 690 N.E.2d 6, 7.

Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly denied the writ. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.