United States District Court, D. Delaware
GEORGE K. TRAMMELL, III, Plaintiff,
JOHN CARNEY, et al., Defendant.
K. Trammell, III, Seaford, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
ANDREWS, U.S. District Judge.
George K. Trammell, III, who appears pro se and has
been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
filed this action complaining of state court actions
regarding his father's estate. (D.I. 2). Trammell asserts
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1343. The Court proceeds to screen the Complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
five years ago, the Court of Appeals observed, "Trammell
is a frequent pro se litigator; most of his suits
are nearly indecipherable and concern state court actions
regarding his father's estate." Trammell v.
Trammell, 485 F.App'x 524, 525 (3d Cir. 2012) (per
curiam) (citing In re Trammell, 468 F.App'x 111
(3d Cir. 2012); Trammell v. Trammell, 446
F.App'x 530, 531 (3d Cir. 2011); Trammell v. Lillies
Love & Daycare Daycare Ctr., 448 F.App'x 188 (3d
Cir. 2011); Trammell v. All Other Collateral Heirs of
Estate of Marie Jones Polk, 446 F.App'x 437 (3d Cir.
Trammell names as defendants numerous state judges, court
administrators, and the current and past governors of
Delaware. While not clear, the complaint may allege
violations of federal criminal statutes as it refers to
various sections of the federal code. In addition, the
complaint refers to the "seditious insurrectionist
capacity" of state judges, a hate crime, and conspiracy
all apparently related to Trammell's father's estate
and the forced auction of his inherited home. There appears
to be dissatisfaction with the handling of his previous case,
Trammell v. Trammell, No. 12-14-RGA, which he
appealed without success. Trammell seeks compensatory damages
and injunctive relief including the eviction of unlawful
occupants residing at Trammell's inherited residence.
federal court may properly dismiss an action sua
sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) if "the action is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief." Ball v. Famiglio, 726
F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions). The
Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as
true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro
se plaintiff. Phillips v. County of Allegheny,
515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008).
action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a court may dismiss a complaint as
frivolous if it is "based on an indisputably merit less
legal theory" or a "clearly baseless" or
"fantastic or delusional" factual scenario.
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28; Wilson v.
Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 1989); see,
e.g., Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1091-92
(3d Cir. 1995) (holding frivolous a suit alleging that prison
officials took an inmate's pen and refused to give it
legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to
state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is
identical to the legal standard used when ruling on Rule
12(b)(6) motions. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d
236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999) (applying Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)
standard to dismissal for failure to state a claim under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)). However, before dismissing a complaint
or claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, the Court must grant Plaintiff leave to amend
his complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or
futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d
103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
proceeds pro se and, therefore, his pleading is
liberally construed and his complaint, "however in
artfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Under Rule 12(b)(6),
a motion to dismiss may be granted only if, accepting the
well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and viewing
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a court
concludes that those allegations "could not raise a
claim of entitlement to relief." Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007). When reviewing the
sufficiency of a complaint, a court should follow a
three-step process: (1) consider the elements necessary to
state a claim; (2) identify allegations that are merely
conclusions and therefore are not well-pleaded factual
allegations; and (3) accept any well-pleaded factual
allegations as true and determine whether they plausibly
state a claim. See Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp.,
809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016); Williams v. BASF
Catalysts LLC, 765 F.3d 306, 315 (3d Cir. 2014).
Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a
"context-specific task that requires the reviewing court
to draw on its judicial experience and common sense."
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and
conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that
a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City
of Shelby, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014). A
complaint may not dismissed, however, for imperfect
statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted.
See Id. at 346.
pro se does not entitle [Trammell] to file pleadings
that are frivolous or repetitive or contain personal
attacks." Trammell, 485 F.App'x at 526. As
stated by the Court of Appeals, "[i]n his filings before
this Court, Trammell appears to be attempting to draw
attention away from the frivolous nature of his claims by
focusing on alleged biases in the District Court and the
state courts, including unfounded allegations of criminal
wrongdoing." Id. It has been several years
since Trammell last appeared in this Court. His litigation
tactics, unfortunately, have not changed. After thoroughly
reviewing the Complaint and applicable law, the Court draws
on its judicial experience and common ...