Raymond G. Francis has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have this court direct the district court to stay its order granting in part and denying in part his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000), to stay the time for filing an appeal, and to ensure that the court properly dockets his objections to the court’s final judgment. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (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 Catawba Indian Tribe, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir. 1992). 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 entitlement to such relief is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980).

Because Francis has filed an appeal from the district court’s order in his § 2255 action, he has failed to show that he is entitled to such extraordinary relief. Accordingly, although we grant Francis leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We deny the motions for judicial notice, motion to have all trial and sentencing transcripts and exhibits transmitted to this court, and 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.