Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-1778 Civil (3)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 REITZ, CALAMAN, COLBERTSON, COOVER AND TEANEY 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 Earl Reitz, Jr., Steve Calaman, Curtis Colbertson, Samuel Coover and Frank Teaney 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), inter alia. ~ The preliminary objections contend that "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.'2 The preliminary objections further maintain that "[n]onsensical words placed on paper next to the names of [the moving Defendants] do not state a cause of action .... ,,3 These preliminary objections were argued before the above court en banc on February 4, 2004.4 For the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed as to Defendants Reitz, Calaman, Colbertson, Coover and Teaney. 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.'5 Paragraph 2 states that "Defendants Earl Reitz, Jr., Steve Calaman, Curtis Colbertson, Samuel Coover,... [and] Frank Teaney... are adult individuals residing in the Cumberland County Community, Pennsylvania.''6 The preliminary objections Defen[]dants', Earl Reitz, Jr., Steve Calaman, Curtis Colbertson, Samuel Coover and Frank Teaney Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint, filed June 2, 2003. Defen[]dants', Earl Reitz, Jr., Steve Calaman, Curtis Colbertson, Samuel Coover and Frank Teaney Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint, para. 5. Defen[]dants', Earl Reitz, Jr., Steve Calaman, Curtis Colbertson, Samuel Coover and Frank Teaney Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint, para. 15. Plaintiff neither submitted a brief nor appeared for argument. Plaintiffs complaint, para. 1. Plaintiffs complaint, para. 2. 2 filed by these individuals suggest that they are all employees of Cumberland County.7 Typical of the 113 paragraphs which follow in Plaintiff's complaint are these: 6. Pursuant therefore the foregoing statement, Defendants John Adams, John Porter, Terry Darr, Greg Deihl, Paul Green, Frank Teaney and Raymond Motter did perpetrate a series of questionable situations and circumstances reportorial the Plaintiff Cory Cormany and the District Attorney of Cumberland County. 7. On April 1st, of the year 1996, Defendant Steve Calaman did corroborate and corrupt criminative offenses directional the Plaintiff Cory Cormany, without superior affirmation political the Cumberland County Prison, Pennsylvania. 9. On May 29th, of the year 1996, Defendants Steve Calaman and Jeffrey Franks did solicit to commit and justify criminal acts against the Plaintiff Cory Cormany, pursuant the Defendant Honorable District Justice Paula Correal. 13. On September 12th of the year 2001, Plaintiff Cory Cormany did waive and consent a guilty ramification objectional Defendants Mat[t]hew Kennedy and Honorable District Justice Paula Correal. 15. On October 2nd, of the year 2001, Defendant Samuel Coover did aggress and implement criminative offenses destitutional the Plaintiff Cory Cormany, without jurisdictional approval influential the Cumberland County Prison, Pennsylvania. 16. On November 4th, of the year 2001, Plaintiff Cory Cormany did listen to and comprehend; 7 Defendants', Earl Reitz, Jr., Steve Calaman, Curtis Colbertson, Samuel Coover and Frank Teaney Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's complaint, para. 3. 3 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. 19. On December 10th, of the year 2001, Plaintiff Cory Cormany did remand a commitment, noncertified an official service, to the Cumberland County Prison, Pennsylvania. 21. On December 24th, of the year 2001, Plaintiff Cory Cormany did pursue a criminal complaint in the District Attorney's Office of Cumberland County culpable Defendants Steve Calaman, Gary Sh[u]lenberger, Jeffrey Kurtz, Mat[t]hew Kennedy, Curtis Colbertson, Samuel Coover and Jeffrey Franks, applicable Defendant Earl Reitz, Jr. 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 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. 4 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. 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. 40. Proceeding hereto and relevant herein; the Defendant Earl Reitz Jr. did maliciously solicit a requisite criminal intention careless a constitutional statute and deliberate a willful conduct. 45. Proceeding hereto and relevant herein; the Defendant Steve Calaman did maliciously solicit a requisite criminal intention careless a constitutional statute and deliberate a willful conduct. 50. Proceeding hereto and relevant herein; the Defendant Curtis Colbertson did maliciously solicit a requisite criminal intention careless a constitutional statute and deliberate a willful conduct. 55. Proceeding hereto and relevant herein; the Defendant Samuel Coover did maliciously solicit a requisite criminal intention careless a constitutional statute and deliberate a willful conduct. 5 85. Proceeding hereto and relevant herein; the Defendant Frank Teaney did maliciously solicit a requisite criminal intention careless a constitutional statute and deliberate a willful conduct.8 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 preliminary objection. Implicit within this rule as well is a requirement that the pleading be intelligible. See Allensrvorth v. First Galesburg Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 18 Ill. App. 2d 608, 152 N.E.2d 890 (1958). Upon consideration of such an 8 Plaintiff's complaint, at 2-17. 6 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 PlaintiWs 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 as against the moving defendants set forth. 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 Earl Reitz, Jr., Steve Calaman, Curtis Colbertson, Samuel Coover and Frank Teaney, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the preliminary objections are sustained to the extent that they seek dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint, and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as to Defendants Reitz, Calaman, Colbertson, Coover, and Teaney. 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 /s/J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 7 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 8 9 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 REITZ, CALAMAN, COLBERTSON, COOVER AND TEANEY 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 Earl Reitz, Jr., Steve Calaman, Curtis Colbertson, Samuel Coover and Frank Teaney, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the preliminary objections are sustained to the extent that they seek dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint, and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as to Defendants Reitz, Calaman, Coover, and Teaney. BY THE COURT, Colbertson, 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 J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 12 Mary E. Butler, Esq. Suite 1414 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Attorney for former Defendant Paula Correal