White v. Alltran Education Inc, 5:20-cv-04009

Feb. 12, 2020: Pro se plaintiff Vancile Arthur White, Jr. sued Alltran Education, Inc. and Credit Adjustments, Inc., asserting FDCPA claims and alleging his federal tax refunds were improperly applied to a 1982 student loan.
Court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, directed issuance of summonses, and appointed the U.S. Marshals to effect service; White’s motion to appoint counsel was denied without prejudice on Feb. 20, 2020.
May 1, 2020: Court issued an order to show cause because Credit Adjustments had been served but not appeared and White had not sought default; court asked White to confirm or update the defendant’s address.
May 18, 2020: White timely responded, corrected the defendant’s name, attached correspondence, and asked the court to reconsider denial of appointed counsel.
Court found the correct defendant name is Credit Adjustments, Inc., identified a Topeka address (112 SW 7th St, Suite 3C, Topeka, KS 66603), and directed the clerk to reissue a summons to be served by the U.S. Marshals rather than dismissing for failure to prosecute.
Court denied White’s motion for reconsideration: the motion was untimely under D. Kan. Rule 7.3(b), offered no new controlling law or newly discovered evidence, and appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) was not justified at this stage (but White may renew later).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claims against Credit Adjustments should be dismissed for failure to prosecute or re-served at a new address	White did not argue for avoiding dismissal; he corrected the defendant’s name and provided correspondence suggesting an address	Credit Adjustments made no appearance; no opposing argument in record	Court corrected the defendant name, directed reissuance of summons to Topeka address, and ordered Marshal service; did not dismiss the claims
Whether to reconsider denial of appointed counsel / appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)	White contends tax-law complexity and need for expert witnesses justify appointment; cites March 2020 federal student-loan relief (irrelevant)	No formal opposing brief recorded; court applied governing standards and prior findings	Motion for reconsideration untimely and without proper basis; renewed request for counsel denied under § 1915(e)(1); White may renew after resolution of dispositive motions

Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2004) (sets factors for appointing counsel to counsel an IFP litigant)
Steffey v. Orman, 461 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir. 2006) (noting that the fact counsel could improve presentation alone does not justify appointment)