¶1 David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to grant a writ of habeas corpus and vacate his state convictions for breaking and entering, larceny, and habitual felon status. We conclude that Smith is not entitled to mandamus relief.
¶2 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 may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). Smith has noted an appeal of the district court’s or *306 der denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.
¶3 The relief sought by Smith is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma 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.