¶1 In No. 01-8013, Kelvin Andre Spotts petitions for a writ of prohibition contending the district court referred his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001) motion to a magistrate judge without his consent in violation of Article III of the Constitution and erred in not entering a default judgment against the Government for failure to respond to his § 2255 motion. In No. 02-6093, Spotts seeks a writ of mandamus, requesting an expedited ruling on his pending § 2255 motion and raising substantive arguments, and also moves to proceed in forma pauperis.
¶2 Writs of mandamus and prohibition are extraordinary remedies, which should issue only when the petitioner’s right to the remedy is clear and indisputable and when the petitioner has no other adequate means of relief. See Kerr v. United States, 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); In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir.1983). Because we find extraordinary circumstances lacking, we deny the petitions. We grant Spotts’ motion to proceed in forma pauper-is in No. 02-6093. We deny Spotts’ motion for release pending appeal. 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 PETITIONS DENIED.