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:
Sylvester LOCKHART, Jr., Appellant, v. Gabriel D’URSO, Deputy Court Administrator, Quarter Sessions Court, Philadelphia County, Michael J. Rotko, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Louis J. Amarando, Clerk of Quarter Sessions Courts, Philadelphia County, Pa., Charles A. Hoenstine, Prothonotary of Superior Court, of Pennsylvania, and George W. Dunn, Deputy Prothonotary of Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
No. 17389.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Submitted on Briefs Feb. 6, 1969.
Decided March 11, 1969.
Sylvester Lockhart, Jr., pro se.
Robert Cox, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for Michael Rotko.
Stanley Asher Winikoff, Deputy Dist. Atty., Harrisburg, Pa., for Hoenstine and Dunn (William C. Sennett, Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, Pa., on the brief).
Murray C. Goldman, Philadelphia, Pa., for Louis J. Amarando.
Before KALODNER, GANEY and SEITZ, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff below appeals from an order of the district court denying him the right to prosecute his civil rights action in forma pauperis.
The district court denied plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on the ground that the action was “plainly without merit”. However, when plaintiff appealed such denial the district court granted him leave to prosecute his appeal in forma pauperis, stating that it was doing so because it could not say that his claim was entirely frivolous. This latter evaluation of the complaint by the district court, without more, requires a reversal of the denial of plaintiff’s right to prosecute his civil rights action in the district court in for-ma pauperis. While there may be ex-1 treme circumstances where such a right I should be denied for plain lack of merit, I we think that, particularly in pro sel cases, the right to proceed in forma pau-j peris should generally be granted where the required affidavit of poverty is filed. This approach minimizes, to some extern, disparity in treatment based on economic circumstances. An attack on the truth of such affidavit or the sufficiency of the complaint should be left for appropriate disposition after service has been made on the defendants. Compare Jordan v. County of Montgomery, Pa. et al., 404 F.2d 747 (3rd Cir. 1969).
The order of the district court of May 7, 1968, in district court civil action No. 68-659 will therefore be reversed and the matter remanded for the entry of an order granting the plaintiff leave to prosecute that action in forma pauperis but without prejudice to the right of defendants, after service, to attack either the truthfulness of the allegations of plaintiff’s affidavit or the sufficiency of his complaint.
KALODNER, Circuit Judge, joins in the result.

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