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 respondents in the case that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
Rex Milton ROSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph C. RINALDI, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 79-4493.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 9, 1981.
Decided July 1, 1981.
Rex M. Rose, on briefs, pro se.
Roger A. Gerdes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Seattle, Wash., on briefs, for defendant-appellee.
Before HUG and SKOPIL, Circuit Judges, and ORRICK , District Judge.
Honorable William H. Orrick, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of Califomia, sitting by designation.
HUG, Circuit Judge:
Rex Rose appeals from a district court order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action as time-barred by the State of Washington’s two-year statute of limitations. He argues that the district court applied the wrong limitations statute to his Section 1983 action. We agree, and accordingly, we reverse the order of the district court.
Rose was stabbed by William Tatsumi on February 19, 1975, while both were participants in a prisoner release program at the University of Washington. Appellee Joseph Rinaldi was a párole officer assigned to the program. On July 18, 1977, Rose filed an action for damages against Rinaldi pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Rinaldi violated his civil rights by disclosing information to Tatsumi which precipitated the attack. The matter was referred to a magistrate who characterized Rose’s cause of action as one for assault and concluded that the claim was barred by Washington’s two-year statute of limitations applicable to assault actions. The district court adopted the conclusion of the magistrate and dismissed the complaint as time-barred.
Rose contends on appeal that the district court erred in dismissing his claim because it improperly applied the limitations statute governing assault actions. He maintains that the correct limitations period for his Section 1983 claim is Washington’s three-year statute applicable to actions for negligence. Rose’s cause of action accrued on February 19, 1975, and his complaint was filed on July 18, 1977. His action therefore would be time-barred under a two-year limitations statute and timely under a three-year statute.
The Civil Rights Act of 1871 does not contain a provision limiting the time within which a claim under the Act may be brought. Thus, the federal courts will apply the applicable period of limitations under state law for the jurisdiction in which the claim arose. Clark v. Musick, 623 F.2d 89, 90 (9th Cir. 1980); Smith v. Cremins, 308 F.2d 187, 189 (9th Cir. 1962). In determining which period of state limitations to apply to a federal action, the court must first characterize the federal claim. Clark v. Musick, 623 F.2d at 91. This circuit has continually characterized Section 1983 claims , as actions created by statute, and, wherever possible, the state limitations period governing actions founded on a liability created by statute has been applied. Id. at 92; Shouse v. Pierce County, 559 F.2d 1142, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 1977). That choice is unavailable here because Washington has no such statute. Therefore, we must examine Washington’s other statutes of limitations and determine which limitations period best serves the interests which Section 1983 was designed to protect.
The need for uniformity in federal law dictates that Rose’s civil rights claim not be characterized as simply an assault or a negligence action. As explained in Clark v. Musick, 623 F.2d at 92 (quoting Smith v. Cremins, 308 F.2d at 190):
Inconsistency and confusion would result if the single cause of action created by Congress were fragmented in accordance with analogies drawn to rights created by state law and the several differing periods of limitation applicable to each state-created right were applied to the single federal cause of action.
Consequently, the magistrate erred in applying the two-year assault statute of limitations and Rose’s contention that the three-year statute governing negligence actions should apply is equally incorrect.
Washington has two catch-all statutes that are suitable for application to a Section 1983 action: (1) Revised Code of Washington (R.C.W.) 4.16.080(2), which restricts to three years an action “for any injury to the person or rights of another not hereinafter enumerated,” and (2) R.C.W. 4.16.130, which limits to two years “an action for relief not hereinbefore provided for.” In Section 1983 actions the United States has an interest in a limitations period “sufficiently generous ... to preserve the remedial spirit of federal civil rights actions.” Shouse v. Pierce County, 559 F.2d at 1146 (footnote omitted). The catch-all three-year limitations period “for any other injury to the person or rights of another” contained in R.C.W. 4.16.080(2) furthers this interest. Moreover, the Washington Supreme Court has stated that in situations where there is uncertainty as to which limitations statute governs, the longer statute will generally be used. See Shew v. Coon Bay Loafers, Inc., 76 Wash.2d 40, 51, 455 P.2d 359, 366 (1969). Accordingly, we conclude that the applicable period of limitations for Rose’s Section 1983 action is three years under R.C.W. 4.16.080(2). The order of the district court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1