Halloum v. Unknown Parties et al

Filing 50

ORDER: Plaintiffs motion for a settlement conference 48 is denied. Plaintiff shall have until 5/11/12 to file responses to the motions in limine. Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 4/27/12. (BAC)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Ammar Dean Halloum,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

Sergeant Robert Cutbirth; Correction
Officer Jesse Morales; and Correction
Officer Robert Stadler,

13
14

Defendants.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-10-00116-TUC-FRZ
ORDER

16

Ammar Halloum, a former detainee at Pima County Jail, filed suit against multiple

17

Defendants in February 2010. Doc. 1. The Court dismissed all claims except the excessive

18

force claim asserted in count two of the amended complaint (Doc. 11 at 7-9) against

19

Defendants Morales, Stadler, and Cutbirth. Docs. 12, 30.

20

Plaintiff has filed a motion for a settlement conference. Doc. 48. Defendants oppose

21

the motion on the ground that they have no intention of settling the case. Doc. 49. Given the

22

“‘well-settled’ doctrine that ‘a court cannot force a party to settle,’” 456Corp. v. United

23

Foods, Inc., No. 3:09 CV 1983(JBA), 2011 WL 5930467, at *6 (D. Conn. Nov. 29, 2011),

24

the motion will be denied.

25

No party has filed a dispositive motion, and the deadline for filing one has expired.

26

Doc. 31 at 3. The parties have filed a joint proposed pretrial order. Doc. 42. As such, upon

27

further review of the record, the Court will issue a separate Order pertaining to trial.

28

1

Defendants have filed two motions in limine. Docs. 43, 44. Plaintiff has not

2

specifically responded to the motions, but instead has filed a notice stating that he provided

3

Defendants with a list of witnesses pursuant to Rule 26(a). Plaintiff shall have until May 11,

4

2012 to file a response to each motion in limine. No further extension of time will be

5

granted.

6

IT IS ORDERED:

7

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for a settlement conference (Doc. 48) is denied.

8

2.

Plaintiff shall have until May 11, 2012 to file responses to the motions in

9

limine.

10
11

DATED this 27th day of April, 2012.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-