Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-6123 Civil (2)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 DEFENDANT ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., and OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., April 1, 2004. For disposition in this civil case in which a pro se Plaintiff has sued various individuals and "the Administration and Staff of the Cumberland County Bar Association," preliminary objections to Plaintiff's complaint have been filed on behalf of the Administration and Staff of the Cumberland County Bar Association (hereinafter Defendant).~ The preliminary objections being pursued by Defendant are in the nature of a demurrer and in the form of a motion to strike for failure to ~ Defendant, Administration and Staff of the Cumberland County Bar Association's, Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint, filed Jan. 29, 2004 (hereinafter Defendant's preliminary objections). plead facts in a concise and summary form in conformity with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a).2 The bases of the preliminary objections are that only one paragraph in the complaint mentions Defendant,3 that "[n]othing in the Complaint states why [Defendant] is in the caption of the case,''4 that "[n]othing in the complaint mentions any wrongdoing by Defendant,'5 and that the complaint is basically incomprehensible.6 Defendant's preliminary objections were argued on March 24, 2004.7 For the reasons stated in this opinion, Defendant's preliminary objections will be sustained and Plaintiff' s complaint against Defendant will be dismissed. 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 "an adult individual residing in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.'a Paragraph 2 states that "Defendant Harold Sheely and associates are adult individuals employed with the Cumberland County Bar Association, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.''9 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. l0 Typical of the 51 paragraphs which follow are these: : At oral argument, Defendant's counsel waived a preliminary objection based upon improper service of the complaint. s Defendant's preliminary objections, para. 26. 4 Defendant's preliminary objections, para. 27, 40. 5 Defendant's preliminary objections, para. 40. 6 Defendant's preliminary objections, para. 39. v Plaintiff neither submitted a brief nor appeared for argument. 8 Plaintiff's complaint, para. 1. 9 Plaintiff's complaint, para. 2. l0 Plaintiff's complaint, para. 3. 2 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 the civil casel: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 terms 97-1504, 01-0092 through 01-0097 in the Common Pleas Court of Cumberland County is 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. 11. In or about the month of February 1996, Plaintiff Cory Cormany was directed and ordered a psychiatric review, as in accordance with the Defendant Harold Sheely, which did consequently breach an agreement 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- 4 5222, 96-1969, 01-6467, and 03-1778, convincible the Common Pleas Court of the Cumberland County, are 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. 43. 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. ~ 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 rel. Swarm v. Shovling, 423 Pa. 26, 233 A.2d 1 (1966). Thus, it has been said that "[p]reliminary objections are certainly appropriate where a pleading Plaintiff's complaint, at 1-11. 5 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 Allensworth v. First Galesburg Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 18 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 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. Furthermore, as Defendant notes, the Cumberland County Bar Association is mentioned in only one paragraph of Plaintiff's complaint (paragraph 2). Even if it is assumed, as alleged by Plaintiff, that former President Judge Sheely of this court is, or was, somehow an "employee" of the Bar Association, a fair reading of the complaint does not set forth any cognizable 6 cause of action against its administration and staff. For these reasons, and based upon the foregoing principles of law, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1st day of April, 2004, upon consideration of the preliminary objections of Defendant Administration and Staff of the Cumberland County Bar Association, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the preliminary objections are sustained and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as to Defendant Administration and Staff of the Cumberland County Bar Association. BY THE COURT, /s/J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 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 7 8 CORY A. CORMANY, Plaintiff Vo 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 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 03-6123 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., and OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1st day of April, 2004, upon consideration of the preliminary objections of Defendant Administration and Staff of the Cumberland County Bar Association, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the preliminary objections are sustained and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as to Defendant Administration and Staff of the Cumberland County Bar Association. BY THE COURT, J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 10 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