2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-6-2010

In Re: George K. Trammell

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-2921

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

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 2010 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

"In Re: George K. Trammell " (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 480.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/480
HLD-158 (July 2010) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2921

___________

IN RE: GEORGE K. TRAMMELL,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Prohibition from the

United States District Court for the District of Delaware

(Related to D. Del. Civ. No. 01-cv-00473)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

July 30, 2010

Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge, SCIRICA and WEIS, Circuit Judges

Opinion filed October 6, 2010 

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM.

On July 9, 2001, George K. Trammell filed a petition for removal pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. ' 1443, seeking to remove pending state criminal charges from the Delaware 

Superior Court. The United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied 

Trammell=s petition for removal and dismissed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '
2

1446(c)(4).1 We affirmed the District Court=s judgment. State of Delaware v. 

Trammell, No. 01-3674 (3d Cir. October 22, 2002). Trammell now asks that we issue a 

writ of prohibition ordering the District Court to reinstate his case and remand it to the 

Delaware state courts. He also seeks an order enjoining Delaware state officials from 

interfering with his constitutional rights. 

A writ of prohibition is a drastic remedy available only in the most 

extraordinary of circumstances. See Swindell-Dressler Corp. v. Dumbauld, 308 F.2d 

267, 272 (3d Cir. 1962); see also In re School Asbestos Litig., 921 F.2d 1310, 1313 (3d 

Cir. 1999).2 Trammell has not demonstrated that his petition meets the requirements for 

issuance of the writ. Not only may a writ of prohibition not be used as a substitute for 

appeal, Swindell-Dressler, 308 F.2d at 272; see also United States v. Santtini, 963 F.2d 

585, 590 (3d Cir. 1992), but Trammell already appealed the District Court=s order 

dismissing his case and we affirmed. With respect to his request that we enjoin state 

actors in Delaware from violating his constitutional rights, Trammell has civil remedies 

available and thus has not established that prohibition relief is warranted. See School 

 

 

1

 An order of summary remand under ' 1446(c)(4) was unnecessary in this case 

because Trammell entered a plea of guilty to the state charges before the District Court 

dismissed his removal petition. 

 

2

 To the extent that Trammell=s request may appear to be more properly construed 

as a writ of mandamus, it does not affect our ruling. Between these writs the form is 

Aless important >than the substantive question [of] whether an extraordinary remedy is 

available.=@ School Asbestos Litig., 921 F.2d at 1313 (citations omitted). 
3

Asbestos Litig., 921 F.2d at 1314 (reiterating that a prerequisite to the issuance of a writ 

is that Athe petitioner [must] have no other >adequate means to attain the desired relief=@) 

(citing Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976)). 

Accordingly, we will deny the petition for writ of prohibition. Trammell=s 

emergency motion is denied.