The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-2761 Civil CORY A. CORMANY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOHN D. ADAMS, LYLE M. HERR AND PAULAP. CORREAL Defendants NO. 05-2761 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT HERR TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS and OLER, JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 13th day of September, 2005, upon consideration of the preliminary objections to Plaintiff s 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 July 22, 2005, are sustained to the extent that they seek dismissal of Plaintiff s 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, P A 17013 Plaintiff, Pro Se William 1. Devlin, Jr., Esquire Suite 200 1 00 West Elm Street Conshohocken, P A 19428 Attorney for Defendant Lyle M. Herr Mary E. Butler, Esquire Administrative Office of P A Courts 1515 Market Street, Suite 1414 Philadelphia, P A 19102 Attorney for Defendant Paula P. Correal Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Broujos & Gilroy, P.C. 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Attorney for Defendant John D. Adams CORY A. CORMANY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOHN D. ADAMS, LYLE M. HERR AND PAULAP. CORREAL Defendants NO. 05-2761 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT HERR TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS and OLER, JJ. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, 1., September 13, 2005. 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 Defendant Lyle M. Herr.1 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 In the preliminary objections, Defendant Herr contends that Plaintiff s Complaint contains paragraph after paragraph of nonsensical sentences some of which contain English words and some which contain words that appear to be wholly made up by Plaintiff.4 The preliminary objections of Defendant Herr were argued before this court on August 24, 2005. Plaintiff neither submitted a brief nor appeared for the 1 Preliminary Objections of Defendant Lyle Herr to Plaintiff's Complaint, filed May 26,2005 (hereinafter "preliminary objections of Defendant Herr"). 2 Preliminary objections of Defendant Herr, para. 7. 3 Preliminary objections of Defendant Herr, para. 2. 4 Preliminary objections of Defendant Herr, para. 3. 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 May 26, 2005, identifies the Plaintiff as "an adult individual residing in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania."s Paragraph 3 states that "[Defendant] Mr. Lyle Herr is an adult individual residing in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.,,6 Typical of the other 20 paragraphs of the complaint are: 5. On or about December 1st, of the year 1988, Ms. Paula P. Correal consummated a procedure pursuant Mr. Cory A. Cormany. * * * * 12. On or about February 20th of the year 2002, The United States District Court reported a legal conclusion pursuant Mr. Cory A. Cormany. * * * * 14. On or about December 16th, of the year 2003, Mr. Cory A. Cormany petitioned a legal conclusion( s) pursuant the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. * * * * 20. On or about June 25th, of the year 2004, Ms. Paula P. Correal scheduled a determination pursuant Mr. Cory A. Cormany.? Three paragraphs in the complaint contain allegations that expressly refer to Defendant Herr: 5 Plaintiff's complaint, para. 1. 6 Plaintiff's complaint, para. 3. 7 Plaintiff's complaint at 1-4. 6. On or about December 14th, of the year 1990, Mr. Lyle M. Herr contradicted a tort pursuant Mr. Cory A. Cormany. 7. On or about January 8th, of the year 1991, Mr. Cory A. Cormany paraphrased a tort pursuant Mr. Lyle M. Herr. * * * * 21. Mr. John D. Adams, Mr. Lyle M. Herr and Ms. Paula P. Correal did prejudicially cause discriminatory negligence, mental anguish, public humiliation, imprisonment and incarceration, emotional distress, lost wages and benefits, loss of property and pain and suffering in the foregoing amount of One Million and and 00 Dollars (1,000,000.00).8 Exhibit B, attached to Plaintiff s complaint, purports to be a Petition for Revocation of Parole signed by Defendant Herr as the petitioner, apparently in his capacity as Plaintiff s parole officer. 9 Exhibit C purports to be a letter written by Plaintiff to one Richard Snelbaker.1o Exhibit N purports to be a copy of a Notice to Plead filed by Plaintiff in a previous action against Defendant Herr. 11 The preliminary objections of Defendant Herr, as heretofore described, were filed on July 22,2005. They were argued on August 24,2005. 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 8 Plaintiff's complaint at 2-4. 9 Plaintiff's complaint, Exhibit "B." 10 Plaintiff's complaint, Exhibit "C." 11 Plaintiff's complaint, Exhibit "N." 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 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)(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 13th day of September, 2005, upon consideration of the preliminary objections to Plaintiff s 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 July 22, 2005, are sustained to the extent that they seek dismissal of Plaintiff s 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, P A 17013 Plaintiff, Pro Se William 1. Devlin, Jr., Esquire Suite 200 1 00 West Elm Street Conshohocken, P A 19428 Attorney for Defendant Lyle M. Herr Mary E. Butler, Esquire Administrative Office of P A Courts 1515 Market Street, Suite 1414 Philadelphia, P A 19102 Attorney for Defendant Paula P. Correal Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Broujos & Gilroy, P.C. 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Attorney for Defendant John D. Adams