¶1 Leroy Robinson petitions for writ of mandamus, seeking an order compelling the United States Parole Commission to follow its rules and regulations and award the proper sentencing credit.
¶2 Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Say. & 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. See 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). Moreover, jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against an agency of the United States lies with the district courts, not this court. 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (2000); 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2000) (providing that this court’s authority under the All Writs Act extends only to issuance of writs necessary or appropriate *612 in aid of appellate jurisdiction); see Estate of Michael ex rel. Michael v. Lullo, 173 F.3d 503, 506 (4th Cir.1999).
¶3 The relief sought by Robinson is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave 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.
¶4 PETITION DENIED