¶1 Michael Scott McRae has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging his 1981 federal conviction. Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary situations. 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). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, Beard, 811 F.2d at 826, and may not be used as a *202 substitute for appeal. In re Catawba Indian Tribe, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir. 1992). The party seeking prohibition or mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his entitlement 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).
¶2 McRae fails to make such a showing, because mandamus relief may not be used as a substitute for appeal and collateral attack. Because McRae may otherwise challenge his conviction, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this court. 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.