
    In re Allie SPEIGHT, a/k/a Allie Speights a/k/a A.H. Speights, Petitioner.
    No. 13-1004.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. Jan. 10, 2013.
    Opinion filed Jan. 14, 2013.
    
      Allie Speight, Philadelphia, PA, pro se.
    Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In April 2012, petitioner Speight pleaded guilty to numerous offenses in the District Court. He has not yet been sentenced. Speight seeks an “emergency writ of mandamus” to 1) set aside or modify an August 21, 2012 order denying bail pending sentencing and 2) force his custodian to treat his serious medical condition. We will deny the petition.

Mandamus is “an appropriate remedy in extraordinary circumstances only.... A petitioner seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus must have no other adequate means to obtain the desired relief, and must show that the right to issuance is clear and indisputable.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.1996). A mandamus proceeding is not a substitute for a direct appeal. See Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 506, 99 S.Ct. 2445, 61 L.Ed.2d 30 (1979).

With regard to Speight’s first request, the August order to which he refers was denied without prejudice pursuant to its reassertion by counsel. Speight may obtain “reconsideration” of it, in a sense, by having counsel file a motion for bail pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a) or (b), as appropriate. Should he be displeased with the outcome, an appeal may be available to him under Fed. RApp. P. 9(b). The availability of other avenues of relief counsels against granting the extraordinary writ of mandamus.

With regard to his second request, the denial of medical care is a serious matter. However, the place to address it is not via a petition for mandamus filed in a federal appellate court. Should Speight believe that a serious medical condition is not being appropriately treated, he should pursue his concerns through the internal administrative remedies of the facility.

Thus, finding neither extraordinary circumstances nor an indisputable right, we will deny this petition for mandamus. 
      
      . Throughout his submissions, Speight confuses 18 U.S.C. § 3143, which governs his situation, with 18 U.S.C. § 3142, which governs bail for those who have not yet been convicted of their offenses. We note that we considered, and denied, an interlocutory appeal from the denial of pretrial release. See CA. No. 11-2877 (order entered Oct. 4, 2011).
     
      
      . According to the FDC Philadelphia Admission & Orientation Inmate Handbook, the facility contains an Administrative Remedy procedure that Speight may utilize if he is concerned about a lack of medical treatment.
     