
    In re James MURPHY, Petitioner.
    No. 10-2695.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. June 30, 2010.
    Filed: July 26, 2010.
    James E. Murphy, Chambersburg, PA, pro se.
    US Atty. HGB, Office Of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendant.
    Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SCIRICA and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

James Murphy petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to release him. For the reasons below, we will deny the petition.

In July 2009, Murphy was convicted of drug trafficking charges. On May 24, 2010, Muiphy filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The District Court dismissed the § 2241 petition by order entered May 27th, and Murphy filed a notice of appeal which was docketed at No. 10-2696. On June 9th, Murphy filed his mandamus petition in which he requested that we review the District Court’s dismissal of his § 2241 petition.

A writ of mandamus should be issued only in extraordinary circumstances. See Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir.1985). Determining whether an extraordinary circumstance exists requires a two-part inquiry. First, it must be established that there is no alternative remedy or other adequate means of relief. Second, a petitioner must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). A writ is not a substitute for an appeal. In re Kensington Intern. Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir.2003). Because Murphy can challenge the denial of his § 2241 petition on appeal, he has other adequate means of relief and is not entitled to a writ of mandamus.

Accordingly, we will deny the petition. Murphy’s motion to stay his criminal proceedings is denied. 
      
      . On June 22, 2010, Murphy was sentenced to 360 months in prison and filed a pro se notice of appeal.
     