David Shuman petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to dismiss all criminal counts against him if the district court agrees with the grounds Shuman raised in various post-conviction motions. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the petition.

*612 Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus is available only if there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).

The relief sought here is not available by way of mandamus. Shuman attempts to use mandamus as a substitute for appeal, which he cannot do. Nor can he demonstrate that mandamus is the only adequate remedy available to him. Accordingly, we deny the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the petition. 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 DISMISSED