The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-1778 Civil (1)CORY A. CORMANY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW EARL REITZ JR., STEVE CALAMAN, CURTIS COLBERTSON, SAMUEL COOVER, JOHN ADAMS, JOHN PORTER, TERRY DARR,: GREG DEIHL, PAUL GREEN, FRANK TEANEY,: RAYMOND MOTTER OF: THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY PRISON; GARY: SHOLENBERGER, JEFFREY KURTZ, MATHEW KENNEDY OF THE CARLISLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,: JEFFREY FRANKS OF THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY D.A. AND PAULA CORREAL, Defendants NO. 03-1778 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS SHULENBERGER, KURTZ AND KENNEDY TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., and OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., April 19, 2004. For disposition in this civil case in which a pro se Plaintiff has sued various individuals, including a district justice, are preliminary objections of Defendants Gary Sh[u]lenberger, Jeffrey Kurtz and Mat[t]hew Kennedy to Plaintiff's complaint. The preliminary objections are in the nature of a demurrer, 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), and a motion for a more specific pleading. ~ Defendants' preliminary objections have been argued before the above court en banc.2 For the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed as to Defendants Sh[u]lenberger, Kurtz and Kennedy. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff's complaint in the above-captioned matter was filed on April 21, 2003. It contains 115 paragraphs and 193 pages. Paragraph 1 of the complaint identifies the Plaintiff as "an adult individual residing in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.''3 Paragraph 2 states that "Defendants... Gary Sh[u]lenberger, Jeffrey Kurtz, [and] Mat[t]hew Kennedy... are adult individuals residing in the Cumberland County Community, Pennsylvania.''4 A brief in support of the preliminary objections filed by these defendants suggests that they are Carlisle Borough police officers. Typical of the 113 paragraphs which follow are these: 10. On September 6th, of the year 1996, Defendant Gary Sh[u]lenberger did commit and coerce criminative offenses perspicacious the Plaintiff Cory Cormany, prior a commitment to the Cumberland County prison. 11. On February 8th, of the year 2000, Defendant Jeffrey Kurtz did commit and construe criminative offenses cumulative the Plaintiff Cory Cormany, proceeding a commitment to the Cumberland County Prison. 12. On May 21st, of the year 2001, Defendant Mat[t]hew Kennedy did commit and abscond criminative offenses calumnious the Plaintiff Cory Carlisle Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff neither submitted a brief nor appeared for argument. Plaintiff's complaint, para. 1. Plaintiff's complaint, para. 2. 2 Cormany, prescient a commitment to the Cumberland County Prison. 13. On September 21st, of the year 2001, Plaintiff Cory Cormany did petition a civil complaint with the United States District Court impetuous the Defendant Honorable District Justice Paula Correal. 16. On November 4th, of the year 2001, Plaintiff Cory Cormany did listen to and comprehend; a number of detrimental procrastinations continual therefore, a Mr. Maswadeh Arafat and associates complaisant the District Attorney of Cumberland County. 17. Prior herein and pertinent hereto, Defendant Honorable District Justice Paula Correal did conspire to the solicitations of the Defendants Jeffrey Franks and Curtis Colbertson, instantaneous the Defendant Mat[t]hew Kennedy. 18. On December 7th, of the year 2001, Defendants Mat[t]hew Kennedy and Honorable District Justice Paula Correal did again solicit to commit and justify criminal acts against the Plaintiff Cory Cormany. 23. On February 26th, of the year 2002, Plaintiff Cory Cormany did service a criminal report to the District Attorney's Office of Cumberland county, communistic Defendant Jeffrey Franks and Att. Edmund Zigmund of the Cumberland County District Attorney, remissible Defendant Mat[t]hew Kennedy. 24. On March 6th, of the year 2002, Plaintiff Cory Cormany did preconceive a legal conclusion disagreeable a mental/physical health condition, sadistic Defendant Mat[t]hew Kennedy and Det. William Deihl of the Cumberland County District Attorney, implicative Defendant Honorable District Justice Paula Correal. 25. On June 7th, of the year 2002, Plaintiff Cory Cormany did file a criminal complaint with the 3 District Attorney's Office of Cumberland County, explicit Defendants Samuel Coover, Mat[t]hew Kennedy and Honorable District Justice Paula Correal, informative Ptl. Brian McVitti of the North Middleton Police Department. 27. On August 29th, of the year 2002, Defendant Mat[t]hew Kennedy did provoke and circumvent criminative offenses impermeable the Plaintiff Cory Cormany without electorial authorization, doubtful the Cumberland County Prison, Pennsylvania. 29. On September 10th, of the year 2002, Plaintiff Cory Cormany did submit a guilty obligation preemptive The Honorable District Justice Thomas Placey in lieu of a prison sentence. 30. On December 2nd, of the year 2002, Plaintiff Cory Cormany did petition a Post Conviction Collateral Motion relievable the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. 35. The Plaintiff Cory Cormany has suffered public humiliation as caused by the defamation of his character, pain and physical injury as a result of the Defendant's solicit and malicious actions. 95. Proceeding hereto and relevant herein; the Defendant Raymond Motter did maliciously solicit a requisite criminal intention careless a constitutional statute and deliberate a willful conduct. 100. Proceeding hereto and relevant herein; the Defendant Jeffrey Kurtz did maliciously solicit a requisite criminal intention careless a constitutional statute and deliberate a willful conduct. 4 105. Proceeding hereto and relevant herein; the Defendant Mat[t]hew Kennedy did maliciously solicit a requisite criminal intention careless a constitutional statute and deliberate a willful conduct.5 To this complaint, preliminary objections were filed on behalf of Defendants Shulenberger, Kurtz and Kennedy on May 14, 2003, and January 22, 2004. The second set of preliminary objections, which is duplicative of the first, will be stricken. DISCUSSION As a general proposition, Pennsylvania courts are not required to entertain submissions which are incoherent, incomprehensible or unintelligible. See, e.g., Common~vealth v. Albert, 522 Pa. 331, 561 A.2d 736 (1989); Common~vealth ex tel. S~vann 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. Richards 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 Co., 118 Ill. 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 Plaintiff's complaint, at 1-21. 5 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 reveals that it is not stated in a concise and summary form in the sense of being intelligible, nor is any legally cognizable cause of action against the moving defendants set forth 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 19th day of April, 2004, upon consideration of the preliminary objections filed on behalf of Defendants Gary Shulenberger, Jeffrey Kurtz and Matthew Kennedy, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The preliminary objections filed on January 22, 2004, are stricken as duplicative of those filed earlier; 2. The earlier preliminary objections are sustained to the extent that they request dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint, and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as to Defendants Shulenberger, Kurtz and Kennedy. BY THE COURT, /s/J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 6 Cory A. Cormany 1883 Douglas Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Plaintiff, pro se William J. Devlin, Jr., Esq. Suite 200 100 West Elm Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Attorney for Defendants Earl Reitz, Jr., Steve Calaman, Curtis Colbertson, Samuel Coover, Frank Teaney, and Jeffrey Franks Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant John Adams Jessica C. Goebeler, Esq. Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP 123 South Broad Street Avenue of the Arts, 28th Fl. Philadelphia, PA 19109 Attorney for Defendants Gary Shulenberger, Matthew Kennedy, and Jeffrey Kurtz Mary E. Butler, Esq. Suite 1414 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Attorney for former Defendant Paula Correal 7 8 CORY A. CORMANY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Vo CIVIL ACTION - LAW EARL REITZ JR., STEVE CALAMAN, CURTIS COLBERTSON, SAMUEL COOVER, JOHN ADAMS, JOHN PORTER, TERRY DARR,: GREG DEIHL, PAUL GREEN, FRANK TEANEY,: RAYMOND MOTTER OF: THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY PRISON; GARY: SHOLENBERGER, JEFFREY KURTZ, MATHEW KENNEDY OF THE CARLISLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,: JEFFREY FRANKS OF THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY D.A. AND PAULA CORREAL, Defendants NO. 03-1778 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS SHULENBERGER, KURTZ AND KENNEDY TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., and OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 19th day of April, 2004, upon consideration of the preliminary objections filed on behalf of Defendants Gary Shulenberger, Jeffrey Kurtz and Matthew Kennedy, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The preliminary objections filed on January 22, 2004, are stricken as duplicative of those filed earlier; 2. The earlier preliminary objections are sustained to the extent that they request dismissal of PlaintiWs complaint, and PlaintiWs complaint is dismissed as to Defendants Shulenberger, Kurtz and Kennedy. BY THE COURT, Cory A. Cormany 1883 Douglas Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Plaintiff, pro se William J. Devlin, Jr., Esq. Suite 200 100 West Elm Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Attorney for Defendants Earl Reitz, Jr., Steve Calaman, Curtis Colbertson, Samuel Coover, Frank Teaney and Jeffrey Franks Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant John Adams J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 11 Jessica C. Goebeler, Esq. Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP 123 South Broad Street Avenue of the Arts, 28th Fl. Philadelphia, PA 19109 Attorney for Defendants Gary Shulenberger, Matthew Kennedy, and Jeffrey Kurtz Mary E. Butler, Esq. Suite 1414 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Attorney for former Defendant Paula Correal