¶1 Randy Lee Hammitt and Sandra Marie Hammitt petition for a writ of prohibition and mandamus. They seek an order vacating any and all pleadings in their pending forfeiture proceeding.
¶2 Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary *791 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). The same standards apply to writs of prohibition. See generally In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 256 n. 5 (4th Cir.2001) (recognizing that prohibition and mandamus are used interchangeably with respect to writs).
¶3 The relief sought by the Hammitts is not available by way of mandamus or prohibition because they may appeal any adverse final ruling in the forfeiture action. Accordingly, we deny the petition. 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