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:
Kenneth DARR, Appellant, v. Robert L. WOLFE, individually and in his official capacity as Judge in Warren, Pennsylvania, Prudential Insurance Company, of America individually and as co-conspirator, Jean Barr, individually and as co-conspirator, Cheryl VanTassel, individually and as co-conspirator, and Michael W. VanTassel, individually and as co-conspirator.
No. 85-3056.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) July 9, 1985.
Decided July 22, 1985.
Kenneth Darr, pro se.
Before SEITZ, HUNTER and MARIS, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
MARIS, Circuit Judge.
In this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the plaintiff, a prisoner confined in the state correctional institution at Huntingdon, alleges a conspiracy by defendants, Jean Barr, Cheryl VanTassel and Michael W. VanTassel (herein referred to as the individual defendants) with defendant Robert L. Wolfe, a Common Pleas judge in Warren, Pennsylvania, to deprive him of the custody and guardianship of his two children, a liberty interest to which he is entitled under the Fourteenth Amendment. Further, he asserts that his mother and sister have been denied the right to visit the children. And finally he alleges that the defendant, Prudential Insurance Company, unlawfully paid the proceeds of a $10,000 insurance policy on the life of his deceased wife to the VanTassel defendants who converted the money to their own use. He seeks a declaratory judgment and money damages. The district court dismissed the complaint, without its having been served on the defendants, on the ground that Judge Wolfe was immune from suit, that private citizens cannot be sued under § 1983 for nonstate-related activities and that an “alleged conspiracy of private citizens with immune state official bars an action against the private citizens.” Thereupon the plaintiff took the appeal now before us.
The complaint was properly dismissed as to Judge Wolfe on the ground of judicial immunity. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). Likewise, it was properly dismissed as to the Prudential Insurance Company since that defendant could not be sued under § 1983 for a nonstate-related activity, the alleged wrongful payment to Michael and Cheryl VanTassel of the proceeds of the insurance policy on the life of plaintiffs deceased wife. The district court went further, however, and dismissed the complaint as to Barr and the VanTassels also, on the ground that an alleged conspiracy of private citizens with an immune state official bars an action against the private citizens under § 1983. In doing so the district court erred.
It is true, of course, that a wrongful act, to be actionable under § 1983, must have been committed “under color of state law.” But, as the Supreme Court pointed out in Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27-28, 101 S.Ct. 183, 186, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980), private persons jointly engaged with an immune state official in the challenged action are themselves acting under color of state law for the purposes of a § 1983 action. Here, as in the Dennis case, the judicial action of the immune judge, the granting of custody of the plaintiff’s children to the VanTassels and guardianship of them to Michael VanTassel, was alleged to be the product of a conspiracy on the part of the individual defendants and the judge. But, said the Supreme Court, “it is of no consequence in this respect that the judge himself is immune from damages liability. Immunity does not change the character of the judge’s action or that of his co-conspirators.” 449 U.S. at p. 28, 101 S.Ct. at p. 186.
A question remains, however, as to whether the allegations of the complaint concerning the existence of a conspiracy and Judge Wolfe’s involvement in it are sufficiently specific to withstand dismissal of the complaint. For it is settled in this circuit that a civil rights complaint under § 1983 must set forth with factual specificity the conduct of defendants alleged to have harmed the plaintiff. Ross v. Meagan, 638 F.2d 646, 650 (3d Cir.1981); Rotolo v. Borough of Charleroi, 532 F.2d 920, 922 (3d Cir.1976); Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270, 1275-1276 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 846, 91 S.Ct. 93, 27 L.Ed.2d 84 (1970); Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3d Cir.1967). Moreover, allegations against a judge supplying the necessary state action in a civil rights suit under § 1983 should be especially specific in order that purely private action may not be converted into state action merely by including the judge as a defendant in the action.
Turning to the complaint in this case, we find it wholly lacking in specific facts to support its conclusory claim that the individual defendants conspired with Judge Wolfe to deprive the plaintiff of the custody and guardianship of his children, the constitutional liberty of which he alleges he has been deprived by the conspirators. The complaint as it stands is therefore dismissable as to the individual defendants on this ground. However, this court has consistently held that when an individual has filed a complaint under § 1983 which is dismissable for lack of factual specificity, he should be given a reasonable opportunity to cure the defect, if he can, by amendment of the complaint and that denial of an application for leave to amend under these circumstances is an abuse of discretion. Ross v. Meagan, 638 F.2d 646, 650 (3d Cir.1981); Rotolo v. Borough of Charleroi, 532 F.2d 920, 923 (3d Cir.1976); Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270, 1275-1276 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 846, 91 S.Ct. 93, 27 L.Ed.2d 84 (1970).
Here the plaintiff was afforded no such opportunity since the complaint was not dismissed as to the individual defendants for lack of specificity but rather on the erroneous ground that they were not suable because of Judge Wolfe’s immunity from suit. Under the circumstances, we think that the plaintiff should be given the opportunity to amend his complaint so as to provide, if he can, the missing factual specificity. To this end, we will vacate the judgment as to the individual defendants and remand the cause to the district court in order that the complaint may be served on those defendants and the plaintiff afforded a reasonable time, to be fixed by the district court, in which to file an amended complaint, if he desires to do so, setting forth specific factual allegations supporting his conspiracy claim.
The judgment as to defendants, Jean Barr, Cheryl VanTassel and Michael W. VanTassel, will be vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. The judgment as to Robert L. Wolfe and the Prudential Insurance Company will be affirmed.

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

Choices:

Answer: 0