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 which of these categories best describes the income of the litigant. Consider the following categories: "not ascertained", "poor + wards of state" (e.g., patients at state mental hospital; not prisoner unless specific indication that poor), "presumed poor" (e.g., migrant farm worker), "presumed wealthy" (e.g., high status job - like medical doctors, executives of corporations that are national in scope, professional athletes in the NBA or NFL; upper 1/5 of income bracket), "clear indication of wealth in opinion", "other - above poverty line but not clearly wealthy" (e.g., public school teachers, federal government employees)." Note that "poor" means below the federal poverty line; e.g., welfare or food stamp recipients. There must be some specific indication in the opinion that you can point to before anyone is classified anything other than "not ascertained". Prisoners filing "pro se" were classified as poor, but litigants in civil cases who proceed pro se were not presumed to be poor. Wealth obtained from the crime at issue in a criminal case was not counted when determining the wealth of the criminal defendant (e.g., drug dealers).

Opinion:
Gary WHITE, Appellant, v. Christopher S. BOND, Joseph Teasdale, John Ashcroft, Dick Moore, Lee Roy Black and David Blackwell, Appellees.
No. 82-2308.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 16, 1983.
Decided Nov. 18, 1983.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., George W. Cox, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for appellees.
James M. Warden, Bruce Campbell, Blackwell, Sanders, Matheny, Weary & Lombardi, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
Before BRIGHT, ARNOLD and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Gary White appeals from the district court’s summary judgment of his pro se action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. White contends that the district court improperly dismissed his civil rights action as frivolous. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On July 28,1982, inmate Gary White filed a pro se civil rights action and a motion for appointment of counsel. He alleged that members of the Missouri Parole Board discriminated against him in parole hearings because of his race and economic status. White also raised several due process claims: he contended that he was not informed of the criteria used by the Board in twice denying him parole, and that he was denied access to his parole file and other prison files containing information utilized by the Board in its decisionmaking process. In addition, White alleged a right to counsel for his parole hearings.
White also claimed that over a seven and one-half year period, numerous state officials and employees had conspired against him. The alleged objectives of the conspiracy were to commit “criminal acts” against White because of his race, and to retaliate against White because of litigation he was pursuing. White asserted that numerous acts were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, including compiling false information and placing it in White’s institutional files to discredit him, giving White an apple that contained a drug which caused him to have a temporary kidney ailment, inciting a riot at the Missouri State Penitentiary in order to kill White, conspiring to serve White a drink containing LSD in order to deprive him of his sanity, attempting to kill White by setting his cell on fire while he slept, invading his privacy by unwarranted intrusions into his mail, conspiring to administer a drug that would cause heart failure, and employing psychological treatments that would cause White to become sexually aggressive.
A number of White’s broad allegations are improper or inadequate to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Several, however, may state a valid civil rights cause of action, especially because pro se pleadings such as White’s are to be liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). In particular, White’s allegation of racial discrimination in the parole process appears to state a cognizable section 1983 claim. See Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex v. Greenholtz, 567 F.2d 1368, 1370 (8th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 841, 99 S.Ct. 132, 58 L.Ed.2d 140 (1978); see also Block v. Potter, 631 F.2d 233, 238 (3d Cir.1980). In addition, although White’s complaint may not state facts sufficient to give rise to the inference that a conspiracy existed, see White v. Walsh, 649 F.2d 560, 561 (8th Cir.1981); Means v. Wilson, 522 F.2d 833, 840 (8th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 958, 96 S.Ct. 1436, 47 L.Ed.2d 364 (1976), several of the specific acts allegedly committed against White, such as unwarranted interference with his mail, may present valid civil rights claims. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1977).
Counsel appointed to argue this case on appeal indicated that he would accept appointment to recast White’s complaint. We appreciate counsel’s willingness to serve in this matter. Accordingly, we remand this case to give counsel an opportunity to amend White’s complaint, developing his due process claims and alleging with greater particularity those claims that may be cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
. The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

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)". Which of these categories best describes the income of the litigant?

Choices:
not ascertained
poor + wards of state
presumed poor
presumed wealthy
clear indication of wealth in opinion
other - above poverty line but not clearly wealthy

Answer: 1