In re Demetric Gray PEARSON, Petitioner, 50 F. App'x 170

PER CURIAM. Demetric Gray Pearson petitions for a writ of mandamus. He seeks orders requiring the Government to show cause and recusing the district court. Pearson also raises claims concerning alleged errors in his state court proceedings. 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 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). Our review of the district court’s docket reveals the Government filed its response and the district court has ruled; therefore, this issue is moot. As to the remainder of Pearson’s arguments, the relief sought by Pearson is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 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. PETITION DENIED.