UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7028

In Re: JOSEPH PHILLIP SMITH, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 20, 2000

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Phillip Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Joseph Phillip Smith has filed a petition for a writ of man- damus in this court seeking an order directing the state court to dismiss an indictment against him. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires” and that his right to such relief is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem.

Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Smith has not made such a showing because this court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, see Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does not have jurisdiction to review state court orders, see District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). Accordingly, we deny Smith’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and deny mandamus relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED