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:
UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Robert M. LEE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEOPLE OF the STATE OF ILLINOIS, City of Chicago Police Department et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14822.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
March 22, 1965.
Robert M. Lee, Jr., pro se.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Chicago, 111., Richard A. Michael, Edward A. Ber-man, Asst. Attys. Gen., of counsel, for defendants appellees.
Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and CASTLE and KILEY, Circuit Judges.
HASTINGS, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff Robert M. Lee, Jr., pro se, is appealing from an order of the district court dismissing his action brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986 against defendants, People of the State of Illinois, City of Chicago Police Department, unknown subjects and party (or parties), Warden Frank J. Pate and others. Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pau-peris in the district court and before us. He appeared personally before us and orally argued his case.
Plaintiff’s complaint does not state a cause of action under the Civil Rights Act against City of Chicago Police Department and People of the State of Illinois since these are not “persons” within the meaning of the Act. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 191-192, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961).
The district court had no jurisdiction over defendants designated in the complaint as “Unknown Subjects and Party (s)” since they" were not named and served with summons and a copy of the complaint.
Pate is the only defendant named in the complaint over whom the district court had jurisdiction.
Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Illinois State Penitentiary, Joliet, Illinois, to serve a sentence of seven years for rape, pursuant to a final judgment of the state courts of Illinois. Penitentiary officials, pursuant to a penitentiary rule, took 360 letters written by plaintiff’s wife, from plaintiff’s possession. These letters were held at the prison for him until his release. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that enforcement of this rule, which prohibits prisoners from accumulating more than fifteen personal letters in their cells, violated his civil- rights. This rule does not apply- to letters pertaining to legal matters.
“Except under exceptional circumstances, internal matters- in state penitentiaries are the sole concern of the states and federal courts will not inquire concerning them.” United States ex rel. Knight v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 337 F.2d 425, 426 (1964). The penitentiary rule limiting each inmate to possession of fifteen personal letters has the valid purpose of preventing fire hazards and is not an exceptional circumstance requiring federal intervention. The question of fact concerning whether the 360 letters in this case are personal or legal is likewise not one of concern to us in the disposition of this case.
Alternatively, plaintiff seeks an order requiring prison officials to send the 360 letters to the district court for safekeeping. This question is moot since Pate, at plaintiff’s request, mailed these letters to the district court on July 14, 1964.
Plaintiff stated in oral argument that he was discharged from prison- on November 23, 1964.
Finding no error in the proceeding below, the order appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.

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