The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-6122 CivilCORY A. CORMANY, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Vo THOMAS KLINE, THE ADMINISTRATION AND: STAFF OF THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, JEFFREY FRANKS, WILLIAM DIEHL AND EDMUND ZIGMUND OF THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Defendants : CIVIL ACTION--LAW : NO. 03-6122 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., and OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., March 25, 2004. For disposition in this civil case in which a pro se Plaintiff has sued various Cumberland County officials and employees are Defendants' preliminary objections to Plaintiff's complaint. The preliminary objections are in the nature of a demurrer and a motion to strike for failure to plead facts in a concise and summary form in conformity with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a). The basis of the preliminary objections has been expressed by Defendants as follows: Plaintiff's Complaint contains paragraph after paragraph of nonsensical sentences some of which contain English words and some [of] which contain words that appear to be wholly made up by Plaintiff.~ ~ Preliminary Objections of Defendants, Thomas Kline, The Administration and Staff of the Cumberland County Sheriff Office, Jeffrey Franks, William Diehl and Edmund Zigmund, to Defendants' preliminary objections were argued on February 4, 2004.2 For the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs' complaint will be stricken. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff's complaint in the above-captioned matter was filed on November 21, 2003. Paragraph 1 of the complaint identifies the Plaintiff as "Cory Cormany, an adult individual residing in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.'3 Paragraph 2 identifies "Defendant Thomas Kline and associates" as "adult individuals employed with the Cumberland County Sheriff Office, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.''4 Paragraph 3 identifies "Defendants Jeffrey Franks, William Diehl and Edmund Zigmund" as "adult individuals represented through the Cumberland County District Attorney, Pennsylvania, United States of America.''5 Typical of the 51 paragraphs which follow are these: 5. In and about the year 1985 and through and about the application herein, Plaintiff Cory Cormany was subjugated criminal and civil allegation unconstitutional a due process; hereto the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 6. Prior hereto and pertinent herein the foregoing statement, the Plaintiff Cory Cormany was summoned and processed dependable the Defendant Thomas Kline of the Cumberland County Sheriff Office. 7. Proceeding therein and preceding thereto the aforesaid ramifications, the Defendants Jeffrey Franks, William Diehl and Edmund Zigmund did remand and Plaintiff's Complaint, filed Jan. 12, 2004, at para. 6 (hereinafter Defendants' preliminary objections, para. __). : Plaintiff did not submit a brief or appear for the argument. s Plaintiff's complaint, para. 1. 4 Plaintiff's complaint, para. 2. 5 Plaintiff's complaint, para. 3. 2 omit a punishable indifference, contemptuously constituent the Plaintiff Cory Cormany. 10. The case numbers 92-1252, 93-1078, 93- 1079, 94-0473, 94-0974, 95-0027, 97-0174, 97-1443, 97-1444, 97-1445, 97-1446, 97-1447, 97-1448, 97- 1449, 97-1450, 97-1451, 97-1452, 97-1701, 01-0092, 01-0093, 01-0094, 01-0095, 01-0096 and 01-0097 procedurally dictate criminal offenses of the summary degree, and are on file at the Cumberland County Court House in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 13. The case numbers 94-1679, 95-0310, 95- 5222, 96-1730, 96-1969, 96-4435, 01-1727, and 03- 1778 procedurally enstate assumptive labels of the alias degree, and are on file at the Cumberland County Court House in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 15. On October 22nd, of the year 2001, the District Attorney's Office in Cumberland County acquired a notarial criminal complaint culpable the Plaintiff Cory Cormany, and proficient a procedure as in accordance with P.S.A. 42 R.C.P. 132, 133, 134 and P.S.A. 42 J.J.P. 1513, 1514 and 1515. 22. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania did proceed criminal allegations slanderous a confliction of interest, and noncertified an official service, for the came number 01-2091; naming the Plaintiff Cory Cormany a defendant substantial a Patrol Officer Mathew Kennedy. 28. The Plaintiff Cory Cormany has suffered lost wages, benefits, fees and property in the amount or in the potential duplicative amount of Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand and 00 Dollars (250,000.00) as a result of the Defendants' malicious and prejudicial actions. 3 32. The Defendant Thomas Kline did implement policy and directive within or throughout the incidents and issues in question, and does have supervisory power unconstitutional an effective legislative, judiciary or executive procedure. 37. Preceding the situations and circumstances defined in the aforementioned statements, the Plaintiff Cory Cormany was not ever depositioned for the purpose of interrogation, nor was he ever treated with an arbitrary reason of indifference for the purpose of an immunological warrant. 49. Preceding the situations and circumstances defined in the aforementioned statements, the Plaintiff Cory Cormany was not ever summoned with prima- facie cause for the purpose of service, nor was he ever dispositioned for the purpose of an immunological indictment.6 DISCUSSION As a general proposition, Pennsylvania courts are not required to entertain submissions which are incoherent, incomprehensible or unintelligible. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Albert, 522 Pa. 331, 561 A.2d 736 (1989); Commonwealth ex tel. Srvann v. Shovling, 423 Pa. 26, 223 A.2d 1 (1966). Thus, it has been said that "[p]reliminary objections are certainly appropriate where a pleading is... incoherent .... "Jackson v. Richard; 5 & 10 Inc., 289 Pa. Super. 445, 451, 433 A.2d 888, 891 (1981). More specifically, under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a), "[t]he material facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form." Implicit within this rule is a requirement that the pleading be intelligible. See Allensrvorth v. First Galesburg Nat'l Bank & Trust 6 Plaintiff's complaint, at 1-13. 4 Co., 18 Iii. App. 2d 608, 152 N.E.2d 890 (1958). Where a portion of a pleading fails to conform to the rule, it is susceptible to a preliminary objection. See Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) (failure of pleading to conform to law or rule of court). Upon consideration of such an objection, the court may properly strike the affected pleading. See, e.g., Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Zanella Transit, Inc., 53 Pa. Commw. 359, 417 A.2d 860 (1980). Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(2), a pleading which is legally insufficient to set forth a cause of action is also susceptible to a preliminary objection. Implicit within this rule as well is a requirement that the pleading be intelligible. See Allensworth v. First Galesburg Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 18 Ill. App. 2d 608, 152 N.E.2d 890 (1958). Upon consideration of such an objection, the court may properly sustain a demurrer and dismiss the pleading. Id. In this regard, it is well settled that "[p]leadings will be construed against a pleader on the theory that he or she has stated his or her case as best he or she can." 2 Goodrich Amram 2d 1019:7, at 249 (2001). In the present case, a careful reading of Plaintiff's complaint indicates that Plaintiff's claim is not stated in a concise and summary form in the sense of being intelligible, nor is any legally cognizable cause of action suggested anywhere in the pleading. For these reasons, and based upon the foregoing principles of law, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 25th day of March, 2004, upon consideration of Defendants' preliminary objections to Plaintiff's complaint, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, Plaintiff' s complaint is dismissed. BY THE COURT, /s/J. Wesley Oier, Jr. J. Wesley Oier, Jr., J. 5 Cory A. Cormany 1883 Douglas Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Plaintiff, pro Se William J. Devlin, Jr., Esq. Suite 200 100 West Elm Street Conshocken, PA 19428 Attorney for Defendants 6 7 CORY A. CORMANY, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Vo THOMAS KLINE, THE ADMINISTRATION AND: STAFF OF THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, JEFFREY FRANKS, WILLIAM DIEHL AND EDMUND ZIGMUND OF THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Defendants : CIVIL ACTION--LAW : NO. 03-6122 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., and OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 25th day of March, 2004, upon consideration of Defendants' preliminary objections to Plaintiff's complaint, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, Plaintiff' s complaint is dismissed. BY THE COURT, Cory A. Cormany 1883 Douglas Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Plaintiff, pro Se J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 9 William J. Devlin, Jr., Esq. Suite 200 100 West Elm Street Conshocken, PA 19428 Attorney for Defendants