St. Ann v. McLean et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 20 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID ST. ANN,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 5:15-cv-11770
Judge Judith E. Levy
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

TODD MCLEAN,
DEAN POTILA,
SAMUEL MORGAN and
THOMAS HAYNES,
Defendants
___________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION (DE 20) FOR STAY OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DE 16)
Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment
was due on May 4, 2016. (See DEs 16, 17, 19.) Currently before the Court is
Plaintiff’s motion, dated April 28, 2016 and filed May 6, 2016, in which Plaintiff
asks the Court to stay its consideration of Defendants’ motion for six months. (DE
20.) In support of his request, Plaintiff describes the obstacles he is encountering
as a pro se, indigent prisoner plaintiff and his role as the alleged victim in People
v. John George (Saginaw County). (DE 20 at 2-3, DE 17 at 10.)
Presumably, Plaintiff would like more time to respond to Defendants’
pending dispositive motion. Moreover, Plaintiff is considering seeking leave to

amend his complaint, a second time, to include the allegations regarding the
October 13, 2015 altercation with Prisoner George, an October 14, 2015
conversation with ARUS Buczek and an October 27, 2015 altercation. (DE 20 at
7-9; see also DE 20 at 10-12.)
Upon consideration, Plaintiff’s motion (DE 20) is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff SHALL have until Tuesday, May 31, 2016 by
which to file a response to Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment.
His request to stay consideration of the summary judgment motion is DENIED. To
the extent Plaintiff is concerned about ordering medical records, authenticating
medical records or requesting discovery (see DE 20 at 11), Plaintiff is reminded
that the discreet issue presented in Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is
whether the claims within Plaintiff’s amended complaint have been exhausted in
accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (See DEs 6, 16.) Also, should Plaintiff
ultimately file a motion to amend his first amended complaint, he is reminded that
any such file must be filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(particularly Fed. R. Civ. P. 15), the Local Rules of the E.D. Mich. (particularly
E.D. Mich. LR 15.1) and my on-line practice guideline regarding “Amended
Pleadings,” which requires that the proposed amended complaint attached to a
motion to amend “must in some way identify the revisions to the pleading. For

2

example, proposed changes can be highlighted, underlined, or filed in a trackedchanges format.”
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2016

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on
May 13, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

3