2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-13-2012

In Re: George Trammell III

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-1777

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

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 2012 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 Trammell III " (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 1149.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/1149
1

ALD-152-E NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-1777

___________

In re: GEORGE K. TRAMMELL, III,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of Delaware

(Related to Civ. No. 12-cv-00014)

____________________________________

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

April 9, 2012

Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 13, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner George Trammell, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus. 

Because Trammell has not demonstrated that he is entitled to such relief, we will deny his 

petition.

As the Delaware Court of Chancery aptly characterized his filings in that forum, 

Trammell’s present petition is “an incomprehensible miasma” and is virtually 

unintelligible. Construing it liberally, as we must, United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 
2

648 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), it appears his 

petition is rooted in the decision to remove Trammell from his position as the 

administrator of his late father’s estate. As a result, he contends that he is being forced to 

sell his home at auction. Trammell has twice sought removal to federal court to 

challenge the sale, and each time his suits have been dismissed for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. See Trammell v. Trammell, No. 12-cv-0014 (D. De. Jan. 23, 2012); 

Trammell v. Trammell, No. 11-cv-0793 (D. De. Nov. 28, 2011).1 He now seeks a writ of 

mandamus directing the United States Marshalls Service or the National Guard to prevent 

the scheduled auction of his property while he continues to litigate his claims. He argues 

that because the state court’s decision was incorrect, the order it issued directing the sale 

of his home was beyond its subject matter jurisdiction.2 

A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary cases. See

Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 

F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). A petitioner seeking mandamus must demonstrate, among 

other things, a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ. Hollingsworth v. 

 

1

 He has also filed numerous other cases concerning his father’s estate. See, e.g., 

Trammell v. Trammell, No. 11-3155, 446 F. App'x 530, 531 (3d Cir. 2011); Trammell v. 

Lillies Love & Care Daycare Ctr., et al., No. 11–3156, 448 F. App'x 188 (3d Cir. 2011); 

see also Trammell v. All Other Collateral Heirs of Estate of Marie Jones Polk, No. 11–

3154, 446 F. App'x 437 (3d Cir. 2011) (abstruse complaint asserting claims regarding the 

estate of Trammell’s deceased aunt).

2

 Trammell also alleges that the state courts and officials are, among other things, 

felonious, insurrectionist, corrupt, no good, and very, very racist. He provides no 

explanation for these allegations. 
3

Perry, 130 S.Ct. 705, 710 (2010) (per curiam). Trammell has not done so, and we will 

therefore deny his petition. The motion for future attorney’s fees are denied.