PER CURIAM.
Henry Batiste has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, requesting this court to direct the district court to expedite its review of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000) petition. Subsequent to Batiste’s filing in this court, however, the district court denied one of Batiste’s pending motions and remanded the case to the magistrate judge. The magistrate judge then denied the remaining pending motions and ordered the Respondents to answer Batiste’s petition. As it appears the case is currently progressing, intervention by this court is not warranted.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). The party seeking 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). Batiste has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny Batiste’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and deny his petition for mandamus relief. 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.