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 "natural persons". 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:
Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack COWLEY, Warden, of Joseph Harp’s Correctional Center, et al., Respondent-Appellee. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. Jack COWLEY, Warden; Unknown Named Warden of Jess Dunn Correctional Center; Gary Maynard, Director for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Respondents. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. Jack COWLEY, Warden, Respondent. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA; Secretary of Health and Human Services, Respondents. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack COWLEY, Warden, Joseph Harp Correctional Center; Gary Maynard, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections; State of Oklahoma, Respondents-Appellees. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. Sam PRESTON, Unit Manager; Jack Cowley, Warden, Joseph Harp Correctional Center, Respondents. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. Jack COWLEY; Joann Shepard, Health Administrator; D. Bradley, Dental Assistant; Dr. R.L. Warren, Dentist, Respondents. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. Jack COWLEY, Warden; Gary Maynard, Director, D.O.C.; Henry Bellmon, Oklahoma State Governor; Robert Macy, District Attorney; Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board Members; Clarence Harkins, Jr.; Augusta E. Mann, Marzee Douglass, Carl B. Hamm, Farrell Hatch, Respondents. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA; William F. Yeager, Warden; Gary F. Maynard, Director for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. Bernie BISHOP, Principal and Leisure Library Supervisor; Janice Brewer, Law Librarian, Respondents. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. Bernie BISHOP, Supervisor; William F. Yeager, Warden, Respondents. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. William F. YEAGER, Warden; John Wilson, Unit Manager; Sergeant Wheats, Respondents. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. William F. YEAGER, Warden; John S. Wilson, Unit Manager; G.D. Lowe, Property-Officer, Respondents. Raymond Herschel JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. Mark SHIPMAN, Correctional Case Manager 2CD, Respondent.
Nos. 87-8065, 87-8070, 88-8001, 88-8017, 88-8027, 88-8039, 88-8040, 88-8077, 88-8085, 89-505, 89-511, 89-512, 89-513, 89-515 and 89-516.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
April 11, 1989.
ORDER
Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
By these cases, commenced in the court’s original jurisdiction, petitioner alleges numerous petty grievances against prison officials. In each case, petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The underlying pleadings are vague, rambling, replete with legalistic jargon, and characteristic of numerous papers filed previously by petitioner in other cases. Since 1980, petitioner has commenced fifty-four cases in the court’s original jurisdiction, in addition to some thirty-three appeals he has filed (See Appendix A).
The subject matter of these cases is conspicuously inappropriate for this court’s original jurisdiction. For that reason they are frivolous. Those who invoke the court’s jurisdiction are charged with both the knowledge of the limits of that jurisdiction and the rules of procedure. We conclude that petitioner has long engaged in a pattern of litigation activity which is manifestly abusive. Appropriate restriction on a litigant’s ability to commence abusive litigation in forma pauperis is within the inherent powers of the court. In re McDonald, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 993, 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989); Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900 (10th Cir.1986).
Because petitioner has repeatedly abused the original jurisdiction of this court, we direct the clerk not to accept further petitions from petitioner for extraordinary writs which allege only grievances against prison officials unless the required docketing fee is paid and all other rules of procedure have been satisfied.
It is further ordered that petitioner will be allowed fifteen days from the date of this order to pay the required filing fee in each of the above cases. If petitioner fails to pay the required filing fee within the time allowed, these cases will be dismissed without further notice.
APPENDIX A

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

Choices:

Answer: 1