Task: songer_appel1_7_5

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". Your task is to determine which of these categories best describes the income of the litigant. Consider the following categories: "not ascertained", "poor + wards of state" (e.g., patients at state mental hospital; not prisoner unless specific indication that poor), "presumed poor" (e.g., migrant farm worker), "presumed wealthy" (e.g., high status job - like medical doctors, executives of corporations that are national in scope, professional athletes in the NBA or NFL; upper 1/5 of income bracket), "clear indication of wealth in opinion", "other - above poverty line but not clearly wealthy" (e.g., public school teachers, federal government employees)." Note that "poor" means below the federal poverty line; e.g., welfare or food stamp recipients. There must be some specific indication in the opinion that you can point to before anyone is classified anything other than "not ascertained". Prisoners filing "pro se" were classified as poor, but litigants in civil cases who proceed pro se were not presumed to be poor. Wealth obtained from the crime at issue in a criminal case was not counted when determining the wealth of the criminal defendant (e.g., drug dealers).

PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff appeals from judgment for the defendants in an action for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants were two former friends of the court, the prosecuting attorney and the board of commissioners of Montmorency County, Michigan. The claim for damages was based on the manner in which the individual defendants had dealt with the failure of plaintiff’s former husband to make child support payments as ordered in a divorce decree. Damages were sought from the county board of commissioners solely on the ground that it was the employer of the individual defendants.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants. It held that the two friends of the court and the prosecuting attorney are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity and that the board of commissioners may not be held liable on the basis of respondeat superior. We agree and affirm.
Even if the county board of commissioners was the employer of the individual defendants (a matter in dispute) the board would not be liable in damages for their actions in the absence of a showing that the acts complained of were taken by the individual defendants pursuant to a “policy or custom” of the municipal body. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2037, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). There was no such showing in the present case.
A public prosecutor is absolutely immune from a claim for damages based upon his official actions performed within the scope of his duties. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). The defendant Tibbetts was entitled to this immunity in the present case. A similar immunity attaches to the activities of other public officials who perform quasi-judicial duties. Denman v. Leedy, 479 F.2d 1097 (6th Cir. 1973). Our examination of the Michigan statutes which prescribe the duties and responsibilities of friends of the court leads us to the conclusion that the acts of the defendants Granholm and Lund which form the basis of the plaintiff’s claims were performed by these defendants within the scope of their official quasi-judicial duties. Therefore, they were also entitled to immunity.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". Which of these categories best describes the income of the litigant?
A. not ascertained
B. poor + wards of state
C. presumed poor
D. presumed wealthy
E. clear indication of wealth in opinion
F. other - above poverty line but not clearly wealthy
Answer:

Answer: A