In Re: Johnson v.

PER CURIAM: Zane A. Johnson, a North Carolina prisoner, petitions for a writ of mandamus. Johnson seeks an order compelling the warden to fully respond to Johnson’s habeas petition on the merits. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and there are no other means to obtain the requested relief. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir.1987). 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); Beard, 811 F.2d at 826. This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials. See Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.1969). The relief sought by Johnson is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, 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.