¶1 Tyrone Hurt petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking the “immediate release of the appellee.” Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only 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 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). A mandamus petitioner must show that he has a clear right to the relief sought, that the respondent has a clear duty to perform the particular act requested, and that the plaintiff has no other adequate remedy. Id.
¶2 We conclude that Hurt has not made the required showing. Accordingly, while we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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.
¶3 PETITION DENIED.