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 second listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous". Your task is to determine which of the following categories best describes the litigant.

Opinion:
James Edward CARTER, Appellant, v. Marvin MANDEL, Governor, Robert J. Lally, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Service, J. Brown Hardy, Acting Director of Patuxent Institution and etc., Appellees. James Edward CARTER, Appellant, v. J. Brown HARDY, Acting Director, Patuxent, Appellee. Charles Anegus ALLEN, James Edward Carter, Inmates, Patuxent Institution, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Robert T. Morgan, Appellants, v. Robert J. LALLY, Secretary, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Mark A. Levine, Commissioner, Maryland Division of Correction, J. Brown Hardy, Acting Director, Patuxent Institution, Franklin Goldstein, Chairman, Board of Patuxent Institution, Jonas Rappeport, M. D., Associate Member, Board of Patuxent Institution, Rev. Marcus G. Wood, Associate Member, Board of Patuxent Institution, and Peter Lejins, M. D., Associate Member, Board of Patuxent Institution, Jerome D. Fran, Robert A. Gordon, Edward A. Tomlinson, Monor B. Crager, Robert B. Levinson, Olive Quinn, John M. Pettibone, Leonard A. Briscoe, Jasper R. Clay, Jr., Russell J. White, and Robert Cahill, Members of Patuxent’s Board of Directors, Appellees.
No. 77-1530.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Feb. 6, 1978.
Decided March 21, 1978.
Charles F. Morgan, Baltimore, Md. (Michael A. Millemann, The Legal Service Clinic; Richard G. Fishman, Baltimore Legal Aid Bureau, Inc., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellants.
Henry J. Frankel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Md. (Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen. of Md., and Clarence W. Sharp, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellees.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BUTZNER and HALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This action was brought to challenge the adequacy of the legal assistance available to Maryland prisoners. The state has not established prison law libraries, but it operates a public defender program. The district court’s opinion carefully analyzes the prisoners’ needs and the public and private assistance that is available. See, Hall v. State of Maryland, 433 F.Supp. 756 (D.Md. 1977).
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977), decided after this case was tried, holds that failure to provide prisoners with adequate law libraries or assistance from legally trained persons violates their constitutional right of access to the courts. With one exception, the district court correctly anticipated the Supreme Court’s ruling. Bounds indicates that the constitutional right of access to the courts extends to federal civil rights claims. 430 U.S. at 827, 828, n.17, 97 S.Ct. 1491. Because the district court concluded that Maryland has no constitutional obligation to provide assistance in federal civil rights cases, 433 F.Supp. at 779-80, that aspect of the case must be remanded for reconsideration in light of Bounds.
The district court found that the legal assistance provided for all other types of litigation was constitutionally sufficient. With respect to these, we affirm. Although litigation is not static and the future may require changes, the record establishes that Maryland has commendably recognized its constitutional obligation to provide legal assistance for its prisoners.
Affirmed in part.
Vacated in part and Remanded.

Question: This question concerns the second listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous". Which of the following categories best describes the litigant?

Choices:
fiduciary, executor, or trustee
other
nature of the litigant not ascertained

Answer: 1