What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the courts's use or interpretation of the arbitrary and capricious standard support the government? Note that APA allows courts to overturn agency actions deemed to be arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Overton Park emphasized this is a narrow standard, and one must prove that agency's action is without a rational basis. This also includes the "substantial justification" doctrine. Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

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: Did the courts's use or interpretation of the arbitrary and capricious standard support the government? Note that APA allows courts to overturn agency actions deemed to be arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Overton Park emphasized this is a narrow standard, and one must prove that agency's action is without a rational basis. This also includes the "substantial justification" doctrine.

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 3