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 the gender of this litigant. Use names to classify the party's sex only if there is little ambiguity (e.g., the sex of "Chris" should be coded as "not ascertained").

Opinion:
Michael F. LALLY, Appellant, v. CRAWFORD COUNTY TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, DENISON, IOWA; Jimmie Thomas, Appellees.
No. 88-1788.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 7, 1988.
Decided Dec. 22, 1988.
Michael F. Lally, pro se.
James B. Cavanagh, Omaha, Neb., for appellees.
Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Michael Lally appeals pro se from the orders of the district court dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. After carefully reviewing the record, we affirm.
This action arose out of the manner in which a $48,000 debt owed by Lally was collected by appellees Crawford County Trust and Savings Bank and its employee, Jimmie Thomas. Lally filed a complaint for violations- of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (RICO), and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1692o (FDCPA), which the district court ultimately dismissed for failure to state a claim. This appeal followed.
A party is subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if “the conduct allegedly causing the deprivation of a federal right [can] be fairly attributable to the State.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 2753, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982). In the case at bar, Lally’s § 1983 claim was based on the allegation that Thomas acted under color of state law when he threatened to have Lally put in jail for violating state criminal statutes. We hold that the district court properly dismissed Lally’s § 1983 claim for lack of state action.
Although a pro se complaint is to be liberally construed, it “must contain specific facts supporting its conclusions.” Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.1985). In pleading RICO violations, a litigant must allege the time, place, and content of all false representations. Bennett v. Berg, 685 F.2d 1053, 1062 (8th Cir.1982), rev’d in part on other grounds, 710 F.2d 1361 (banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1008, 104 S.Ct. 527, 78 L.Ed.2d 710 (1983). This Lally failed to do in spite of the fact that the district court afforded him sufficient opportunity to amend his complaint and warned that his failure to do so would result in dismissal. The district court’s dismissal of Lally’s RICO and FDCPA claims was proper.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. The Honorable Donald E. O'Brien, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

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)". What is the gender of this litigant?Use names to classify the party's sex only if there is little ambiguity.

Choices:
not ascertained
male - indication in opinion (e.g., use of masculine pronoun)
male - assumed because of name
female - indication in opinion of gender
female - assumed because of name

Answer: 1