opinion: Carl Lee JOHNSON, Appellant, v. Officer SWYKA, Capt. L.G. Tohey, Robert Maroney, Deputy Supt., George Petsock, Superintendent.
  No. 82-5594.
  United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
  Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) Feb. 10,1983.
  On Remand from the Supreme Court Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) June 6,1985.
  Decided June 19, 1985.
  Carl Lee Johnson, pro se.
  Leroy S. Zimmerman, Atty. Gen., José Hernandez-Cuebas, Deputy Atty. Gen., Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
  Before ALDISERT, HUNTER, and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges.
  OPINION OF THE COURT
  PER CURIAM.
  We have been directed by the United States Supreme Court to reconsider our previous decision in this case, reported at 699 F.2d 675 (3d Cir.1983), in light of Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). Johnson v. Swyka, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 2108, 85 L.Ed.2d 474 (1985). Upon reconsideration we remand the cause to the district court for further proceedings.
  Appellant Carl Lee Johnson, a prisoner at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh, alleged that he was taken to the institution’s Restricted Housing Unit following a sit-down demonstration. The next day he received a misconduct report that he contends was false and did not provide him with adequate notice of the charges against him. He was afforded a disciplinary hearing on August 31, 1981, before the institution’s Hearing Committee and found guilty. After an unsuccessful appeal to the institution’s Program Review Committee, he brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the district court on May 13, 1982. The magistrate to whom the action was referred concluded that the action was time-barred by 42 Pa. Cons.Stat.Ann. § 5522(b)(1), Pennsylvania’s six-month limitations period. Her report was adopted by the district court in an order entered on October 25, 1982, and Johnson appealed.
  When we first decided this case, we vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded the proceedings for reconsideration of the statute of limitations issue in light of this court’s decision in Knoll v. Springfield Township School District, 699 F.2d 137 (3d Cir.1983). See Johnson v. Swyka, 699 F.2d at 676. Subsequently, the Supreme Court granted petitions for certiorari in both Knoll and this case, vacated our judgments, and remanded both cases to us for reconsideration in light of Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). On remand in Knoll v. Springfield Township School District, 763 F.2d 584 (3d Cir.1985), we observed that the Court in Wilson v. Garcia held that “the state statute of limitations governing tort actions for the recovery of damages for personal injuries provides the appropriate limitation period [for § 1983 actions].” Id. at 585 (citing Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. at -, 105 S.Ct. at 1947). We held that Pennsylvania’s two-year limitations period for personal injuries now should be applied to actions brought under § 1983. Id. at 585.
  In our original decision in this case, we noted that the Supreme Court had granted a petition for certiorari in Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 103 S.Ct. 864, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), and that the disposition of Hewitt could affect the decision on the merits here. Hewitt has now been decided. Upon remand, therefore, the district court will adjudicate this case in light of Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254, Knoll v. Springfield Township School District, 763 F.2d 584, and Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 103 S.Ct. 864, 74 L.Ed.2d 675.
  We will vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the cause for proceedings consistent with the foregoing.
instruction: 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 "private business and its executives". 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.