Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-927 Civil CORY A. CORMANY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW LYLE M. HERR, Defendant NO. 04-927 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT LYLE M. HERR TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS and OLER, JJ. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, 1., September 28,2005. This case was commenced by a complaint filed by pro se Plaintiff Cory A. Cormany against Defendant Lyle M. Herr.l Defendant has filed preliminary objections in response to Plaintiffs complaint.2 The preliminary objections being pursued by Defendant are in the nature of a demurrer3 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),4 inter alia.s In the preliminary objections, Defendant notes that the "Plaintiffs 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 1 Plaintiff's complaint 2 Preliminary Objections of Defendant Lyle M. Herr to Plaintiff's Complaint, filed March 15, 2004 (hereinafter preliminary objections of Defendant Herr). 3 Preliminary objections of Defendant Herr, para. 10. 4 Preliminary objections of Defendant Herr, para. 11. 5 Preliminary objections of Defendant Herr, para. 12. 6 Preliminary objections of Defendant Herr, para. 4. 1 The preliminary objections were argued before the above court en banc on August 24, 2005. Plaintiff neither submitted a brief nor appeared for argument. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the preliminary objections will be sustained and Plaintiff s complaint against Defendant Herr will be dismissed. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiffs complaint, which was filed on March 4, 2004, contains 14 paragraphs and 70 pages of exhibits. Paragraph 1 of the complaint identifies the Plaintiff as "an adult individual residing in the Cumberland County Community, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania."? Paragraph 2 states that "Defendant is Lyle Herr, an adult individual residing in the Cumberland County Community, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania."s Typical examples of paragraphs found in Plaintiff s complaint are: 3. The subiect matter is a United States District Court Summons petitioning the clerk of courts to quash an expungement Case NO.1 :CV-04-454.9 * * * * 5. Mr. Cory Cormany is the said to be convincible for the criminal conviction sustained in the Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County, substantial the Miscellaneous Term Case No. 95-0310.10 * * * * 12. The Defendant Lyle Herr is said to have investigated the Plaintiff Cory Cormany, and is said to have arrested the incident in question, respectfully submitted exhibits A through E.ll 7 Plaintiff's complaint, para. 1. 8 Plaintiff's complaint, para. 2. 9 Plaintiff's complaint, para. 3. 10 Plaintiff's complaint, para. 5. 11 Plaintiff's complaint, para. 12. 2 The exhibits attached to Plaintiff Cormany's complaint which expressly refer to Defendant Herr purport to be copies of a Warrant To Commit and Retain signed by Defendant Herr, who was apparently Plaintiff s probation officer,12 a letter from Defendant Herr to Plaintiff s attorney delineating the monetary balance owed by Defendant as a result of a criminal offense,13 a revision to Plaintiff s parole conditions requiring cessation of all contact with the victim of his offense,14 a prior complaint (semble) naming Lyle M. Herr as a defendant, IS and a copy of a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in which the Plaintiff refers to Lyle M. Herr in one paragraph.16 None of these exhibits serves to render plaintiff s complaint more lucid. The preliminary objections of Defendant Herr, as heretofore described, were filed on March 15, 2004. 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). 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 12 Plaintiff's complaint, Exhibit A. 13 Plaintiff's complaint, Exhibit B. 14 Plaintiff's complaint, Exhibit C. 15 Plaintiff's complaint, Exhibit D. 16 Plaintiff's complaint, ExhibitE. 3 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 the pleading fails to conform to the rule, it is susceptible to a preliminary objection. See Pa. RC.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)(4), 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 against Defendant Herr is 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 Defendant Herr. Based upon the foregoing principles of law, the following order will therefore be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 2005, upon consideration of the preliminary objections to Plaintiffs complaint filed on behalf of Defendant Herr, and for the reasons stated in 4 the accompanying opinion, it is ordered and directed that the preliminary objections filed on March 15, 2004, are sustained to the extent that they seek dismissal of Plaintiffs complaint, and Plaintiff s complaint is dismissed as to Defendant Herr. BY THE COURT, sf 1. Wesley Oler, Jr. 1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1. Cory A. Cormany 1883 Douglas Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Plaintiff, pro Se William 1. Devlin, Jr., Esq. Devlin & Devine Suite 200 1 00 West Elm Street Conshohocken, P A 19428 Attorney for Defendant 5 6 7 8 CORY A. CORMANY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW LYLE M. HERR, Defendant NO. 04-927 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT LYLE M. HERR TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS and OLER, JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 2005, upon consideration of the preliminary objections to Plaintiffs complaint filed on behalf of Defendant Herr, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, it is ordered and directed that the preliminary objections filed on March 15, 2004, are sustained to the extent that they seek dismissal of Plaintiffs complaint, and Plaintiff s complaint is dismissed as to Defendant Herr. BY THE COURT, 1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1. Cory A. Cormany 1883 Douglas Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Plaintiff, pro Se William 1. Devlin, Jr., Esq. Devlin & Devine Suite 200 1 00 West Elm Street Conshohocken, P A 19428 Attorney for Defendant 9