Carlton Paige, a District of Columbia Code offender whose parole supervision was revoked, petitions for writ of mandamus against the United States Parole Commission (the Commission). He seeks to have this court compel the Commission to follows its Rules and Procedures Manual, thereby vacating its parole revocation decision against Paige and convening a new parole revocation hearing. Paige also moves to proceed in forma pauperis.

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 be used only in extraordinary situations. 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 may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See *519 In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).

The relief sought by Paige is not available by way of mandamus. Nor has Paige established an indisputable right to the relief sought. Accordingly, although we grant Paige’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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