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:
Patricia A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Theodore C. GRANHOLM, Michael F. Lund, David F. Tibbetts & Montmorency County Board of Commissioners, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 80-1229.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued Oct. 8, 1981.
Decided Nov. 6, 1981.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1982.
Frances McIntyre-Leonard, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellant.
E. Dan Stevens, Atlanta, Mich., for defendants-appellees.
Before WEICK, LIVELY and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff appeals from judgment for the defendants in an action for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants were two former friends of the court, the prosecuting attorney and the board of commissioners of Montmorency County, Michigan. The claim for damages was based on the manner in which the individual defendants had dealt with the failure of plaintiff’s former husband to make child support payments as ordered in a divorce decree. Damages were sought from the county board of commissioners solely on the ground that it was the employer of the individual defendants.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants. It held that the two friends of the court and the prosecuting attorney are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity and that the board of commissioners may not be held liable on the basis of respondeat superior. We agree and affirm.
Even if the county board of commissioners was the employer of the individual defendants (a matter in dispute) the board would not be liable in damages for their actions in the absence of a showing that the acts complained of were taken by the individual defendants pursuant to a “policy or custom” of the municipal body. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2037, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). There was no such showing in the present case.
A public prosecutor is absolutely immune from a claim for damages based upon his official actions performed within the scope of his duties. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). The defendant Tibbetts was entitled to this immunity in the present case. A similar immunity attaches to the activities of other public officials who perform quasi-judicial duties. Denman v. Leedy, 479 F.2d 1097 (6th Cir. 1973). Our examination of the Michigan statutes which prescribe the duties and responsibilities of friends of the court leads us to the conclusion that the acts of the defendants Granholm and Lund which form the basis of the plaintiff’s claims were performed by these defendants within the scope of their official quasi-judicial duties. Therefore, they were also entitled to immunity.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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: 3