Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00116/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00116-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ammar Dean Halloum, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sergeant Robert Cutbirth; Correction

Officer Jesse Morales; and Correction

Officer Robert Stadler, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-00116-TUC-FRZ

ORDER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the motion will be denied.

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

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

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

Case 4:10-cv-00116-FRZ Document 50 Filed 04/30/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

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

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

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

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

granted. 

IT IS ORDERED:

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

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

limine.

DATED this 27th day of April, 2012.

Case 4:10-cv-00116-FRZ Document 50 Filed 04/30/12 Page 2 of 2