2012 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
4-13-2012 

# I n R e: Geor ge T

r a mmel l III
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 . 12-1777

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_2012

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 2012 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

" I n R e: Ge or g e T

r a mme l l I I I " (2012). 2012 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1149. 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_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ALD - 152 - E NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 - 0 0 014 )

____________________________________ 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 Tramme ll 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 unintelli gible. Construing it liberally, as we must, United States v. Miller , 1 97 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 adminis trator 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 ma tter 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 prev ent the scheduled auction of his property while he continues to litigate his claims. H e 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 ot her things, a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ
. Hollingsworth v.

1 

### H e 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 , 4 48 F. App'x 188 (3d Cir. 2011); s ee 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 cour ts and officials are, among other things, felonious, insurrectionist, corrupt, no good, and very, very racist. H e provide s no explanation for these allegations
.

### 3

Perry , 130 S.Ct. 705, 710 (2010) (per curiam). Trammell has not done so, and w e will therefore deny his petition. The motion for future attorney’s fees are denied.