Task: songer_genresp2

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.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
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 is to determine the nature of the second listed respondent. If there are more than two respondents and at least one of the additional respondents has a different general category from the first respondent, then consider the first respondent with a different general category to be the second respondent.

PER CURIAM.
By this appeal, Jessie W. Collins seeks review of the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. See also, decided this day, Collins v. Cundy, 603 F.2d 825 (10th Cir.).
Collins alleges that he was beaten while in the custody of appellee Hladky, the sheriff of Campbell County, Wyoming. Collins contends that the sheriff so assaulted him while another officer held a gun on him, and that two unknown deputy sheriffs also engaged in the attack at defendant Hladky’s direction.
The district court directed that the parties file affidavits. Defendant filed an affidavit denying any such event had occurred; Collins filed a counteraffidavit elaborating on the alleged beatings.
The trial court thereafter without further proceedings entered findings of facts and conclusions of law, holding that the defendant did not beat or direct the beating of Collins. The complaint was then dismissed as frivolous and without merit.
On appeal to this court, it is urged that the trial court erred in resolving disputed factual issues by resort to affidavits. We agree.
This case is not an instance where from the affidavits, pleadings and motions, the “undisputed, crucial facts” permit a determination that the case is frivolous. Martinez v. Chavez, 574 F.2d 1043, 1046 (10th Cir. 1978). The crucial fact is whether the sheriff beat or directed the beating of Collins. This fact cannot be determined solely from conflicting affidavits or in a summary judgment type proceeding. Martinez v. Chavez, 574 F.2d at 1043, 1045 n.l (10th Cir. 1978); Taylor v. Gibson, 529 F.2d 709 (5th Cir. 1976). At the very least, some further development of the record is necessary. Robinson v. Benton, 579 F.2d 70, 71 (10th Cir. 1978); Bethea v. Crouse, 417 F.2d 504 (10th Cir. 1969).
In Martinez v. Chavez, supra, the “undisputed, crucial facts” were clearly based on careful consideration of all the pleadings filed. We held that under the circumstances of that case, Martinez could make no rational argument on the law or facts in support of his claim. Accordingly, dismissal under § 1915(d) was proper. Martinez v. Chavez, 574 F.2d at 1046.
In the case at bar, however, Collins may possibly be able to establish facts which would entitle him to relief. A claim of assault on a prisoner by his custodian is cognizable under § 1983. Dearman v. Woodson, 429 F.2d 1288 (10th Cir. 1970); Bethea v. Crouse, supra.
This circuit has long held that when a prisoner files a motion for leave to proceed and the poverty affidavit is facially sufficient, the complaint should be filed. Duhart v. Carlson, 469 F.2d 471, 473 (10th Cir. 1972), cert. denied sub nom. Long v. Carlson, 410 U.S. 958, 93 S.Ct. 1431, 35 L.Ed.2d 692 (1973); Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 981, 84 S.Ct. 495, 11 L.Ed.2d 426 (1963). Thereafter, if the court finds the action is frivolous or obviously without merit, it may dismiss the case, preferably with a statement of reasons for the action taken. This is the testing under § 1915(d). Substantial compliance with this procedure is generally acceptable. Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260 (10th Cir. 1976); Redford v. Smith, 543 F.2d 726 (10th Cir. 1976); Harbolt v. Alldredge, 464 F.2d 1243 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1025, 93 S.Ct. 473, 34 L.Ed.2d 319 (1972); Oughton v. United States, 310 F.2d 803 (10th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 937, 83 S.Ct. 1542, 10 L.Ed.2d 693 (1963). Service on the defendant is not always necessary. Smart v. Villar, 547 F.2d 112 (10th Cir. 1976).
The test for determining if an action is frivolous or without merit is “whether plaintiff can make a rational argument on the law or facts in support of his claim.” Bennett v. Passic, supra; Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978); Harbolt v. Alldredge, supra; Durham v. United States, 400 F.2d 879 (10th Cir. 1968). This test must be followed. The first step of the test under § 1915(d) was fully considered by this court en banc in Martinez v. Aaron, supra, and was adopted for application in this circuit.
It is apparent from the record that the basic fact — the occurrence of the beating— cannot be determined by totally conflicting affidavits. This is all that appears in the record. The “trial” cannot be solely on affidavits. We are unable to determine from the record whether the case was decided on the merits or whether it was dismissed under § 1915(d). The judgment must be reversed and remanded.

Question: What is the nature of the second listed respondent whose detailed code is not identical to the code for the first listed respondent?
A. private business (including criminal enterprises)
B. private organization or association
C. federal government (including DC)
D. sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
E. state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
F. government - level not ascertained
G. natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
H. miscellaneous
I. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: D