In these consolidated petitions, Michael Kokoski petitions for writs of mandamus, alleging the district court has unreasonably delayed acting on his habeas corpus petition and challenging the reassignment of district court judges.

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, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980) (citations omitted); In re: First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988); 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)).

We find there has been no unreasonable delay in the district court. We further find Kokoski is not entitled to relief with respect to the reassignment of district court judges.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petitions for writs 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.

PETITIONS DENIED.