2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-4-2011

Trammell v. All Others Collateral Heirs of

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-3154

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Trammell v. All Others Collateral Heirs of" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 406.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/406
DLD-301 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3154

___________

GEORGE K. TRAMMELL, III,

Appellant

v.

ALL OTHER COLLATERAL HEIRS OF 

THE ESTATE OF MARIE JONES POLK; 

JO ANN ROBINSON CARROLL,

severally et al.

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D.C. Civil No. 1-11-cv-00272)

District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond*

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

September 29, 2011

Before: FISHER, BARRY and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

(Filed: October 4, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

 *

Due to a vacant judgeship in the District of Delaware, the Honorable Paul S. 

Diamond of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania sat by designation.
2

George K. Trammell III appeals from the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of 

his lawsuit. For the following reasons, we will summarily affirm.

I.

Trammell brought this lawsuit against Jo Ann Robinson Carroll on behalf of 

himself and “all other collateral heirs of the estate of Marie Jones Polk,” Trammell’s 

deceased aunt. The complaint, which is virtually unintelligible, appears to assert 

constitutional claims against Carroll on the basis that she deprived Trammell and other 

family members of property they inherited when Polk passed away in 1967. Trammell 

insinuates that Carroll caused the deed showing Trammell’s ownership to “vanish” from 

the computer system at the Sussex County “recorder of deeds” and suggests that she 

created a fraudulent will purporting to be Polk’s.

The District Court dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B), on the basis that Trammell’s allegations are “totally implausible, 

attenuated, and devoid of merit,” and concluded that amendment would be futile.1

II.

 (July 

6, 2011 Mem. 4.) Trammell timely appealed.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and review the 

District Court’s dismissal of Trammell’s complaint as frivolous for abuse of discretion. 

 1 The District Court also denied without prejudice Trammell’s motion for a 

temporary restraining order because he failed to sign it. Trammell never refiled a signed 

copy of his motion.
3

See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). We may summarily affirm if no 

substantial question is presented by the appeal. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 

10.6.

The District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Trammell’s complaint 

because the complaint lacks an arguable basis in fact and law. See Neitzke v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Trammell’s factual allegations – especially that Carroll stole 

his property by making recorded deeds vanish from public records – are simply 

unbelievable. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. Additionally, we cannot discern a legal basis 

for Trammell’s claims that Carroll violated his constitutional rights by stealing his 

property. Nothing in the complaint suggests that Carroll is a state actor subject to 

liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988), or that 

Carroll was involved in a conspiracy to violate Trammell’s constitutional rights. 

Furthermore, the District Court appropriately concluded that amendment would have 

been futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 112-13 (3d Cir. 2002). 

Accordingly, since no substantial question is raised by this appeal, we will summarily 

affirm.2

 2 We also agree with the District Court that, as a pro se litigant, Trammell may not 

represent parties other than himself. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; see also Osei-Afriyie ex rel. 

Osei-Afriyie v. Med. Coll. of Pa., 937 F.2d 876, 882-83 (3d Cir. 1991).