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.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "fiduciaries". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
Lloyd B. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Raymond M. ALDINGERS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 93-8081.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 27, 1993.
Lloyd B. Smith, pro se.
Before WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges, and LITTLE, District Judge.
District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
In this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff-Appellant Lloyd B. Smith appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), and that court’s revocation of his in forma pauperis status. We have granted Smith in forma pauperis status for purpose of this appeal and review the district court’s determination that his claim was frivolous. When we do so we find that the district court incorrectly interpreted Smith’s claim as one attempting to litigate a violation of another person’s constitutional rights, and therefore we vacate the dismissal and remand for further consideration consistent with this opinion.
I
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Smith, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a § 1983 complaint alleging that prison officials inflicted cruel and unusual punishment on him in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The claim arose from an incident in the facility’s kitchen involving Smith, another inmate (Richardson), and Defendant-Appellee Aldingers, a prison guard. According to Smith, Aldingers asked the two inmates to bring him an empty trash can. The two men obliged, walking over to a trash can which they found to be filled with pitchers. As the two inmates were removing the pitchers from the trash can for Aldingers, he approached them with a kitchen vegetable knife in hand, told Richardson to hold out his hand, then ran the blade across Richardson’s hand, drawing blood. According to Smith, Aldingers then turned to Smith and asked “you want some of this too?” Smith alleges that he was frightened by this question (which he took to be a threat) and as a result has had to seek psychiatric counseling.
The district court reviewed Smith’s claim on the same day that it was filed and concluded that Smith alleged no personal deprivation of his constitutional rights. The district court interpreted Smith’s complaint as being urged on behalf of Richardson, the victim of the actual battery, rather than a complaint by Smith in his own right. The court reasoned that, as Smith alleged only that he “suffered [e]motional distress as a result of observing the violent event,” he could not recover and his complaint was therefore frivolous. Accordingly, the court revoked Smith’s in forma pauperis status and dismissed his claim as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
In a motion filed three days after the dismissal (but before service on any defendant) Smith requested leave to amend his complaint to add the warden as a defendant. The court denied the motion as the complaint had been dismissed. Smith timely appealed.
II
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) allows a court to dismiss sua sponte a complaint filed informa pauperis if the complaint is frivolous. A complaint is “ ‘frivolous whe[n] it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” We review a § 1915(d) dismissal for abuse of discretion.
B. Eighth Amendment Violation
The district court clearly erred when it concluded that Smith failed to allege his own constitutional violation. His complaint expressly alleges that the guard’s threat at knifepoint, directed to Smith, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, not Richardson’s. As Smith admittedly suffered no physical contact or physical injuries, the legal question his case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment covers purely psychological injury. As the district court failed totally to consider this claim, we are bound to find an abuse of discretion in the court’s dismissal of the claim as frivolous. Consequently, we must remand for consideration of this claim.
When, on remand, the district court considers Smith’s claim, and the res nova issue it presents in this Circuit, it should do so in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Hudson v. McMillian (including Justice Black-mun’s concurrence which addresses the issue of psychological harm), as well as that ease’s progeny in other circuits. We express, however, no opinion as to the merits of Smith’s claim or the extent to which he might or might not have pleaded a claim on which recovery can be had, i.e., whether, absent physical contact, purely emotional injuries are cognizable in this Circuit as violative of the Eighth Amendment.
The district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and its revocation of Smith in forma pauperis status are VACATED and the case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. Denton v. Hernandez, — U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992) (quoting Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989)).
. Id. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 1734.
. - U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992).
. E.g., Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375 (4th Cir.1993) (if pain results in a serious emotional injury there is a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim under § 1983); Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521 (9th Cir.1993) (psychological harm from cross-gender clothed body search a viable Eighth Amendment claim under § 1983); Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518 (10th Cir.1992) (death threats accompanied with brandishment of weapon creates a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim).

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "fiduciaries"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0