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).

Opinion:
Green MILLER, Jr., Appellant v. Marion BARRY, Mayor, et al.
No. 82-1850.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Jan. 28, 1983.
Before TAMM, WALD and SCALIA, Circuit Judges.
Opinion PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary affirmance as well as the response to the motion, it is
ORDERED by the Court that the motion to dismiss for lack of a final appealable order is denied. The District Court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s action with respect to defendant Jack Vincent terminates the action below. It is
FURTHER ORDERED by the Court that the alternative motion for summary affirmance is granted. The District of Columbia and its Mayor Marion Barry, cannot be held liable on a theory of respondeat superior either under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or in a Bivenstype action. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Tarpley v. Greene, 684 F.2d 1 (D.C.Cir.1982).
PER CURIAM:
We note that the complaint in the instant case contains an allegation that the police officer “was acting fully within the scope of his employment and pursuant to the policies of defendant corporation.”
In Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), the Supreme Court held that although respondeat superior was not available as a basis for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 liability on the part of local government bodies, 436 U.S. at 664 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. at 2022 n. 7, local government units can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where the alleged unconstitutional action “implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers.” 436 U.S. at 690, 98 S.Ct. at 2035.
The Supreme Court recently had occasion to review a complaint for the sufficiency of its allegations in this regard. In Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981), the pro se plaintiff’s only reference to governmental policies was the “bald allegation that [Defendant] had injured him while acting pursuant to administrative ‘rules and procedures for ... handling criminal appeals’ and that [Defendant’s] employers were therefore responsible for [Defendant’s] actions.” 454 U.S. at 326, 102 S.Ct. at 453. The Court concluded that “even in light of the sympathetic pleading requirements applicable to pro se petitioners,” id., this allegation did not describe a constitutional tort actionable under § 1983, since “official policy must be the ‘moving force of the constitutional violation’ in order to establish liability of a governmental body under § 1983.” Id., citing Monell, supra 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. at 2037.
In the instant case, petitioner has made a similarly conclusory allegation. The mere assertion that the police officer “was acting fully within the scope of his employment and pursuant to the policies of defendant ...” is not specific enough to withstand dismissal. Petitioner pointed to no rule, procedure or policy of the District which would require or even permit the alleged unconstitutional actions. In other words, he failed to allege that his claimed constitutional harm was caused by a “policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision promulgated or adopted by [defendants].” Monell, supra at 690, 98 S.Ct. at 2035. Absent such allegation the complaint must fail.
TAMM, Circuit Judge, did not participate in the foregoing decision.
. Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).

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?

Choices:
not ascertained
poor + wards of state
presumed poor
presumed wealthy
clear indication of wealth in opinion
other - above poverty line but not clearly wealthy

Answer: 0