ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION (DE 20) FOR STAY OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DE 16)

ANTHONY P. PATTI, Magistrate Judge.

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 example, proposed changes can be highlighted, underlined, or filed in a tracked-changes format."

IT IS SO ORDERED.