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:
UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Alex BIRNBAUM, Appellant, v. Edward J. DOLAN et al.
No. 19406.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 8, 1971.
Decided Dec. 21, 1971.
Alex Birnbaum, pro se.
Lewis N. White, III, Asst. Prosecutor, New Brunswick, N. J. (John S. Kuhlthau, Prosecutor, Middlesex County, New Brunswick, N. J., on the brief), for Edward J. Dolan.
John S. Fitzpatrick, Deputy Atty. Gen., Trenton, N. J. (George F. Kugler, Jr., Atty. Gen. of N. J., Stephen Skillman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Trenton, N. J., on the brief), for Dale G. Cordy.
Before VAN DUSEN and ROSEN, Circuit Judges and LAYTON, Senior District Judge.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
Appellant has appealed from the Order of the District Court dismissing his civil rights complaint as demonstratively frivolous and insufficient on its face.
In January of 1967, an assault and battery, and a robbery occurred in Jamesburg, New Jersey. On March 20, 1969, a robbery occurred in Point Pleasant, New Jersey. Birnbaum was arrested in connection with the Point Pleasant robbery. Detective Cordy of the New Jersey State Police interviewed Birnbaum at his place of confinement because there were similarities between the crimes. At the August 28, 1969, interview, Birnbaum said he would appear at a lineup if counsel were provided. At the September 4, 1969, lineup, Birnbaum was identified as the perpetrator of the February offenses. Birnbaum claims that the lineup was unconstitutional. Defendant Dolan, the county prosecutor, handled the resulting litigation for the government.
On January 12, 1971, the New Jersey Superior Court granted a motion dismissing the charges of atrocious assault and battery, which took place in January, 1967. On January 13, 1971, the same court ruled that the lineup identification was inadmissible against Birnbaum in any state criminal proceeding. Birnbaum was acquitted of the January 1967 charges two days later. During this entire period, he was incarcerated in connection with the March robbery.
Birnbaum brought a civil rights action on October 20, 1970, based on 42 U. S.C. § 1983 in the District Court against Dolan and Cordy for damages due to his being subjected to an unusually long confinement prior to trial and an improper lineup. The complaint was dismissed in November of 1970 because it was not only too general, but also because it sought to enjoin a state criminal prosecution. Birnbaum has filed a timely appeal.
Section 1983 actions are often brought by persons who have had little or no legal assistance in preparing their petitions, but who may be suffering from the infringement of an important civil right, with the result that such complaints are liberally construed by reviewing courts. At some point, however, a complaint may be so vague that, despite a liberal reading, it must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
First, appellant claimed that he wanted his trial transferred to federal court because the slow pace of the state prosecution was depriving him of his right to a speedy trial. The enjoining of a criminal proceeding in a state court is an extreme measure designed only for those rare situations in which irreparable injury would result to the defendant. The language of 28 U.S.C. § 2283 clearly intends that an injunction to stay criminal proceedings in a state court would be rarely issued by a federal court. Only last term, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that concept when it held that only under extraordinary circumstances where the likelihood of irreparable loss to the defendant is both great and immediate, and he is unable to defend himself in one prosecution, should a federal court enjoin a pending state criminal prosecution. Appellant has not alleged bad faith either in his arrest or the manner of the prosecution of his case. It follows that appellant has not set forth sufficient reasons which might have justified his request for enjoining the state criminal action, and the District Court properly denied such a request.
Second, appellant claims that defendants’ actions in furtherance of the prosecution of his case gave rise to damages compensable under Section 1983. This contention is without merit in the instant case. State officers, such as defendant Dolan, acting in good faith in the pursuance of their official duties, are shielded from Section 1983 damage suits, as long as their actions are not clearly outside their jurisdictions. Therefore, appellant’s second contention must be dismissed.
Third, appellant argues that because he was subjected to illegal lineup, he should be compensated in damages. However, since the lineup identifications were not used against him, and we are presented actually with the question whether an abstract violation of a constitutional right which has no harmful consequences to the defendant entitles him to money damages under Section 1983, there is no merit to this argument.
In the light of the foregoing, the decision of the District Court will be affirmed.
. In Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3rd Cir. 1967), while determining that a pro-se complaint would be dismissed, the Court held that “The complaint is insufficient because it is broad and conclusory. Its insufficiency lies in its failure to state facts in support of its conclusions.”
. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). Appellant has not attempted to set forth special fact situations which might prove bad faith on the part of the prosecution, as a possible basis for assessment of damages. See, Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1116, 14 L.Ed.2d 22 (1965). Also, we cannot overlook the termination of the charges against plaintiff arising from the 1967 occurrences making moot much of the relief sought. See Caldwell v. Craighead, 432 F.2d 213, 218 (6th Cir. 1970).
. Pierson v. Kay, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967) ; Bauers v. Heisel, 361 F.2d 581 (3rd Cir. 1966).
. Negrich v. Hohn, 246 F.Supp. 173 (W.D.Penn.1965), aff’d, 379 F.2d 213 (3rd Cir. 1967).

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