ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR NEW COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL AND STRIKING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

MARSHA J. PECHMAN, Senior District Judge.

Plaintiff originally filed a motion to appoint counsel on July 18, 2019 when he filed his complaint. Dkt. No. 2. The Court granted that motion on July 31, 2019 (Dkt. No. 4) and ordered the Pro Bono Panel Coordinator to identify an attorney to represent Plaintiff. On September 10, 2019, an order appointing attorneys Lisa Elliott, Jada Wood, and Roberta Armstrong was entered. Dkt. No. 16.

On September 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a New Court Appointed Counsel, asserting that the above-mentioned attorneys "have not shown the will and or a sense of urgency to investigate the defendant, the issue and its circumstances, [and] have not shown a sense of urgency in presenting specific legal arguments and establishing a strategy for winning the case." Dkt. No. 18 at 1-2.

The motion is DENIED. While Plaintiff is not certainly required to accept the services of the counsel appointed at his request from the Pro Bono Panel, neither is he permitted to pick and choose among the available attorneys until he finds one to his liking. He stated in his motion that he "is not opposed to resuming his civil case `Pro Se.'" Id. at 2. The Court acknowledges his right to represent himself and the case will proceed forward in that posture.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 17. Since he has already paid his filing fee, the Court assumes that the IFP request was directed to the question of whether he would be required to reimburse the court for the services of appointed counsel. Since Plaintiff will be proceeding pro se, the application for IFP status is moot and will be STRICKEN.

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Plaintiff and all counsel.