2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-4-2011

Trammell v. Trammell

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-3155

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. Trammell" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 405.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_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DLD-302 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D.C. Civil 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 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 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, George 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 District 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, 

2011Order 4.) George timely appealed.

2 Publicly available documents from the related state court proceedings reveal that, 

after George’s father 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 intended to carry out his 

father’s ‘true’ wishes, that the estate should go to [him] solely and not to Kermick.” Id. 

Finding several 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. 213, 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 over 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 record provided that no substantial question is presented by the appeal. 

See 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 arguable 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 wholly 

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. George’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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Since George’s appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily 

affirm the District Court’s dismissal of his complaint.