John A. Williams has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking this court to compel the district court to recuse itself from further proceedings relative to his criminal trial. Mandamus is a drastic remedy, only to be granted in extraordinary circumstances. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987) (citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976)). The party seeking mandamus relief has the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate avenues of relief and that his right to the relief sought is “clear and indisputable.” Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 309, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989) (quoting Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384, 74 S.Ct. 145, 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953)); Beard, 811 F.2d at 826. Courts are extremely reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus, and the decision is within the discretion of the court addressing the application for the writ. Beard, 811 F.2d at 827 (citations omitted).

We find that Williams has not met his burden of proof such that mandamus is the proper remedy in this situation. Mandamus is not a substitute for appeal, In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979), and Williams’ right to relief by way of mandamus is not clear. See Mallard, 490 U.S. at 309, 109 S.Ct. 1814; In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, while we grant Williams leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his request for 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