Order Directing Response

JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.

On May 18, 2018, this Court entered a screening order on pro se plaintiff George Arthur's original complaint.1 The screening order permitted Arthur's failure-to-protect claim to proceed against Defendants Williams, Faliszek, and Kuloloia.2 It also stayed the case for 90 days and referred it to the Inmate Early Mediation Program.3 That same day, Arthur filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, attached his proposed amended complaint, and filed a motion for leave to file a longer-than-normal amended complaint.4

It appears that the Court's screening order and Arthur's motions related to an amended complaint crossed in the mail. So, I now direct Arthur to decide whether he wants to proceed on his original complaint and the screening order issued on May 18, 2018, or on his amended complaint. If Arthur choses to proceed on the original complaint and screening order,5 the Court will deny the two pending motions. If, however, Arthur chooses to proceed on his amended complaint, Court will vacate the screening order, grant the motions, and screen the amended complaint in a separate order in the future. Screening the amended complaint will take several months.

Conclusion

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Arthur has until June 20, 2018, to advise the Court whether (by filing a Notice of Intent) he intends to proceed (1) on his original complaint and screening order (ECF Nos. 9, 10) OR (2) on his amended complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Arthur fails to file a timely notice in response to this order, this action will proceed on the original complaint and screening order, and the two motions relating to the amended complaint will be denied as moot.