Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-6123 Civil (1)CORY A. CORMANY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Vo CIVIL ACTION - LAW HAROLD SHEELY; THE ADMINISTRATION: AND STAFF OF THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION; LYLE HERR; SAMUEL COOVER AND DIRK BERRY OF THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE, Defendants NO. 03-6123 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS HERR, COOVER AND BERRY TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., and OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., May 19, 2004. For disposition in this civil case in which a pro se Plaintiff has sued various parties, preliminary objections to Plaintiff' s complaint have been filed on behalf of Defendants Lyle Herr, Samuel Coover and Dirk Berry.~ The preliminary objections being pursued by Defendant are in the nature of a demurrer2 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),3 inter alia.4 ~ Preliminary Objections of Defendants, Lyle Herr, Samuel Coover and Dirk Berry, to Plaintiff's complaint, filed January 15, 2004 (hereinafter preliminary objections of Defendants Herr, Coover and Berry). : Preliminary objections of Defendants Herr, Coover and Berry, para. 14. s Preliminary objections of Defendants Herr, Coover and Berry, para. 2. 4 Preliminary objections of Defendants Herr, Coover and Berry, para. 15. In the preliminary objections, the moving parties note that their names appear rarely in the complaint,5 and contend further that PlaintiWs 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.6 The preliminary objections of Defendants Herr, Coover and Berry were argued before the above court en banc on February 4, 2004.7 For the reasons stated in this opinion, the preliminary objections will be sustained and Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants Herr, Coover and Berry will be dismissed. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff's complaint, which was filed on November 21, 2003, contains 52 paragraphs and 83 pages. Paragraph 1 of the complaint identifies the Plaintiff as "an adult individual residing in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.''8 Paragraph 3 states that "Defendants Lyle Herr, Samuel Coover and Dirk Berry are adult individuals employed by the Cumberland County Court House, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.''9 Typical of the other 50 paragraphs of the complaint 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. The criminal terms 85-0722, 86-0358, 89- 2068, 91-0505, 92-1252, 93-1078, 93-1079, 94-0973, 94-0974, 94-1222, 95-0027 and 95-0376 in the Common Pleas Court of Cumberland County is in accordance with the solicit ramifications litigated in Preliminary objections of Defendants Herr, Coover and Berry, para. 4. Preliminary objections of Defendants Herr, Coover and Berry, para. 3. Plaintiff neither submitted a brief nor appeared for argument. Plaintiff's complaint, para. 1. Plaintiff's complaint, para. 3. 2 the civil case 1:CV-95-0844 filed in the United States District Court for Pennsylvania. 7. The criminal terms 94-1222, 95-0375 and 95- 0376 in the Common Pleas Court of Cumberland County is in accordance with the procedural obligations stated in the civil cases 95-5222, 96-1730 and 96-1969 filed in the Cumberland County Common Pleas Court for Pennsylvania. 8. The criminal terms 96-1584, 97-0174, 97- 1443, 97-1444, 97-1445, 97-1446, 97-1447, 97-1448, 97-1504 and 97-1701 in the Common Pleas Court of Cumberland County is in accordance with the solicit ramifications litigated in the civil case 1:CV-01-1803 filed in the United States District Court for Pennsylvania. 9. The criminal through 01-0097 in the Cumberland County is terms 97-1504, 01-0092 Common Pleas Court of in accordance with the procedural obligations stated in the civil cases 96- 4435, 01-1727 and 01-6467 filed in the Cumberland County Common Pleas Court for Pennsylvania. 10. On December 19th, of the year 1990, Defendant Lyle Herr complained of an argumentative conversation, allegory the Plaintiff Cory Cormany, and did later contradict such stipulated implication, as in accordance with a Ms. Tina Adams and the Common Pleas Court of Cumberland County. 12. On October 2nd, of the year 2001, Defendant Samuel Coover compiled a reactionary assault team, explicit the Plaintiff Cory Cormany, and did later excuse such stipulated implication, as in accordance with a Mr. David MacMain and the Common Pleas Court of Cumberland County. 13. In and about the month of January 2002, Plaintiff Cory Cormany was directed and ordered a subpoena appearance, as in accordance with the Defendant Dirk Berry, which did deface a criminal element in the Common Pleas Court of Cumberland County. 3 16. The Plaintiff Cory Cormany has acknowledged Criminal, Civil and Actual issues of malice identified and associated with unconstitutional public actions, as in accordance with the Post Conviction Act set forth by the United States of America. 17. The case numbers of 1:CV-95-0844 and 1:CV-01-1803 in the Middle District Court of the United States were adjudicated and dismissed, as in accordance with the rules of court set forth by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 20. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania did precede criminal allegations slanderous a confliction of interest, and noncertified an official service, for the case number 01-2091; naming the Plaintiff Cory Cormany a defendant substantial a County Detective William Diehl. 23. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania did proceed criminal hearings conspiratorial an act of justice and certified an official position; usable the Defendants Harold Sheely and associates as in disaccordance with P.S.A. 42 R.C.P. 58, 65, 66, 101, 102, 110, 123, and 130. 24. The intentional and criminal ramifications demonetized in the case numbers 85-0722, 86-0358, 89-2068, 91-0505, 92-1252, 93-1078, 93-1079, 94- 0973, 94-0974, 94-1222, 95-0027, 95-0374, 95-0375, 95-0376, 96-1584, 97-0174, 97-1443, 97-1444, 97- 1445, 97-1446, 97-1447, 97-1448, 97-1504, 97-1701, 01-0092, 01-0093, 01-0094, 01-0095, 01-0096 and 01- 0097, decidable the Common Pleas Court of the Cumberland County, are in disaccordance with the Commonwealth and United States Constitutions. 25. The compensatory and punitive ramifications remedialized in the case numbers 95- 5222, 96-1969, 01-6467, and 03-1778, convincible the Common Pleas Court of the Cumberland County, are 4 in disaccordance with the Commonwealth and United States Constitutions. 28. The Plaintiff Cory Cormany has suffered lost wages, benefits, fees and property in the amount in excess of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00 Dollars (250,000.00) as result of the Defendants' malicious and prejudicial actions. 30. The prejudicial and malicious matters and actions are serious as having happened in the Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, respectfully submissive the order of the court and exhibits A through I. 31. Preceding the situations and circumstances defined in the aforementioned statements, the Plaintiff Cory Cormany was not ever empowered a lawful servitude for the purpose of a pursuit in happiness, nor was he ever petitioned with a serviceable indictment for the purpose of an immunological warrant. 37. Preceding the situations and circumstances defined in the aforementioned statements, the Plaintiff Cory Cormany was not ever depositioned for the purpose of probable cause, nor was he ever serviced with an arbitrary reason of indifference for the purpose of an immunological affirmation. 38. The Defendant Lyle Herr 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. 44. The Defendant Samuel Coover 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. 5 50. The Defendant Dirk Berry 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, l0 The preliminary objections of Defendants Herr, heretofore described, were filed on January 15, 2004. preliminary objections was filed by the same Defendants on January 20, 2004. This latter set of preliminary objections will be stricken as duplicative. DISCUSSION As a general proposition, Pennsylvania courts are not required to entertain submissions which are incoherent, incomprehensible or unintelligible. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. A/bert, 522 Pa. 331, 561 A.2d 736 (1989); Commonwealth ex re/. Swarm v. Shov/ing, 423 Pa. 26, 233 A.2d 1 (1966). Thus, it has been said that "[p]reiiminary 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 A//ensworth v. First Ga/esburg Nat'/Bank & Trust 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. Zane//a Transit, Inc., 53 Pa. Commw. 359, 417 A.2d 860 (1980). Coover and Berry, as An identical set of Plaintiff's complaint, at 1-13. 6 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 Goo&ich Amram 2d 1019:7, at 249 (2001). In the present case, a careful reading of Plaintiff's complaint indicates that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Herr, Coover and Berry are not stated in a concise and summary form in the sense of being intelligible, nor can the complaint be understood as setting forth any legally cognizable cause of action against any of these defendants. Based upon the foregoing principles of law, the following order will therefore be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 19th day of May, 2004, upon consideration of the preliminary objections to Plaintiff's complaint filed on behalf of Defendants Herr, Coover and Berry, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The preliminary objections filed on January 20, 2004, are stricken as duplicative of those filed on January 15, 2004; and 2. The preliminary objections filed on January 15, 2004, are sustained to the extent that they seek dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint, and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as to Defendants Herr, Coover and Berry. 7 BY THE COURT, Cory A. Cormany 1883 Douglas Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Plaintiff, pro Se Stephen E. Geduldig, Esq. Shawn E. Smith, Esq. Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 Attorneys for Defendant Administration and Staff of the Cumberland County Bar Association William J. Devlin, Jr., Esq. Devlin & Devine Suite 200 100 West Elm Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Attorney for Defendants Herr, Coover and Berry s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 8 9 CORY A. CORMANY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Vo CIVIL ACTION - LAW HAROLD SHEELY; THE ADMINISTRATION: AND STAFF OF THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION; LYLE HERR; SAMUEL COOVER AND DIRK BERRY OF THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE, Defendants NO. 03-6123 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS HERR, COOVER AND BERRY TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., and OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 19th day of May, 2004, upon consideration of the preliminary objections to Plaintiff's complaint filed on behalf of Defendants Herr, Coover and Berry, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The preliminary objections filed on January 20, 2004, are stricken as duplicative of those filed on January 15, 2004; and 2. The preliminary objections filed on January 15, 2004, are sustained to the extent that they seek dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint, and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as to Defendants Herr, Coover and Berry. BY THE COURT, Cory A. Cormany 1883 Douglas Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Plaintiff, pro Se Stephen E. Geduldig, Esq. Shawn E. Smith, Esq. Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 Attorneys for Defendant Administration and Staff of the Cumberland County Bar Association William J. Devlin, Jr., Esq. Devlin & Devine Suite 200 100 West Elm Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Attorney for Defendants Herr, Coover and Berry J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.