Wingo v. City and County of San Francisco, 3:12-cv-01932

Pro se plaintiffs Ingram and Wingo sued the City of San Francisco and SFPD under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged civil rights violations following their arrests on August 29, 2011.
Complaints allege defamation, excessive force, unreasonable searches, harassment, false arrest, false imprisonment, and right to assemble violations.
Ingram alleged he was arrested while minding his own business; his claims include a mental disability assertion affecting representation.
Wingo alleged police conduct including guns drawn, rough handcuffing, and two-day detention for no reason on Geary Street.
Plaintiffs sought enormous monetary damages and asserted they were proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP).
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaints under Rule 12(b)(6); the court also considered IFP status and guardian ad litem requests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs may proceed IFP	Plaintiffs claim they cannot afford counsel and should be granted IFP status	Plaintiffs failed to submit required IFP affidavits and assets information	Denied IFP status; cases dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)
Whether the complaints state a claim upon which relief can be granted	Plaintiffs allege civil-rights violations including harassment and false arrest	Allegations are vague, conclusory, and fail to show personal involvement or viable claim	Dismissed for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)
Whether the actions are frivolous	Claims seek relief for alleged wrongful arrests and excessive conduct	Claims are vague, irrational, and lack factual basis or legal merit	Dismissed as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)
Whether counsel should be appointed	Counsel should be appointed due to difficulty articulating claims	No exceptional circumstances; unlikely success on merits and issues not complex	Requests for appointment of counsel denied
Whether guardian ad litem should be appointed for Ingram	Ingram is mentally disabled and incompetent to proceed; guardian ad litem needed	Given frivolous claims and lack of representation by counsel, guardian appointment not warranted	Guardian ad litem appointment denied

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolousness standard in IFP dismissals)
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (requirement of plausible claims, not mere conclusions)
Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2))
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1992) (frivolity review under IFP statute)
Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1984) (court may appoint counsel to indigent civil litigants under exceptional circumstances)
Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (exceptional circumstances require likelihood of success and complexity)
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (revised standard for complaints by pro se prisoners)
Meeker v. Kercher, 782 F.2d 153 (7th Cir. 1986) (advises non-attorney representation concerns (cited in guardian context))
Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 1997) (minors/incapacitated must be represented by counsel)