2011 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

10-4-2011 

# T r a mmel l v . T r a mmel l

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 11-3155

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2011 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" T r a mme l l v . T r a mme l l " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 405. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/405

### DLD
- 302 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11

- 3155

___________ GEORGE K. TRAMMELL, III , Appellant

v. KERMICK BRAXTON TRAMMELL, SR.

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United St ates District Court for the District of Delaware (D.C. Civi l No. 1

- 11

- cv - 00331 ) District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond *



### ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant t o Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 September 29, 2011 Before: FISHER, BARRY and VAN ANTWERPEN , Circuit Judges ( F iled : October 4, 2011 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM

* 

### Due to a vacant judgeship in the District of Delaware, the Honorable Paul S. Diamond of the East ern District of Pennsylvania sat by designation

.

### 2 George K. Trammell III appeals from the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of his complaint against Kermick Braxton Trammell, Sr. 1



### George’s virtually incomprehensible pro se complaint suggests that his claims arise out of a dispute with Kermick over the estate of his late father, G eorge Trammell, Jr. George asserts that his father left everything to him, and implies that Kermick is interfering with his inheritance in some respect. The complaint also alludes to proceedings in the Delaware courts concerning the estate. For the following reasons, we will summarily affirm.

2 

### The Distric t Court dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), on the basis that George’s allegations are “totally implausible, attenuated, and devoid of merit.” 3

1 

### To avoid confusion, we will refer to George Trammell III as “George” and Kermick Trammell as “Kermick.” (July 6,
2011 Order 4.) George timely appealed.

2 

### Publicly available documents from the related state court proceedings reveal that, after George’s f ather died intestate , George was appointed administrator of the estate

. In re Estate of Trammell , No. 271

- S, 2010 WL 692328 , at *1 (Del. Ch. Feb. 9, 2010). Kermick, also a son of the decedent, filed a petition to remove George as the administrator. At a hearing on that petition, George acknowledged that he failed to communicate with Kermick about the estate, noting that “ he inte nded to carry out his father’s ‘true’ wishes, that the estate should go to [him] solely and not to Kermick .” Id. Finding sever al justifications for removing George as the administrator, the Chancery Court granted Kermick’s petition and substituted him as the successor administrator of the estate

. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that decision

. See Trammell v. Trammell , No. 2 13, 2010 WL 4137728, at *1 (Del. Oct. 21, 2010).
3 

### In light of that ruling, the District Court denied as moot George’s motion for injunctive relief.

### 3 We have jurisdiction ov er this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and review the District Court’s dismissal of George’s complaint as frivolous for abuse of discretion. See Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). We may summarily affirm on any basis supported by the reco rd provided that no substantial ques tion is presented by the appeal.
S ee 3d Cir. L .A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6; see also Tourscher v. McCullough , 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). We find it difficult to assess whether George’s allegations lack any ar guable basis in fact because we have trouble discerning any factual allegations at all from the complaint

. See Denton , 504 U.S. at 33 (“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the w holly incredible . . . .”). Nevertheless, we agree that the District Court’s dismissal was entirely appropriate, as it lacked jurisdiction over the complaint. Although the complaint cites 28 U.S.C. § 1331, we perceive no basis for a federal claim. Georg e’s complaint clearly arises out of a family dispute, as opposed to a violation of his civil rights. Furthermore, to the extent George raises claims under state law, there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction because both parties reside in Delaware. Se e 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Since George’s appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Cour t’s dismissal of his complaint.