
USCA1 Opinion

	




          May 22, 1995                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-1044                                  ORLANDO DIAZ-OJEDA,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.            PEDRO TOLEDO, SUPERINTENDENT, THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO                              POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                   [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]                                               ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Orlando Diaz-Ojeda on brief pro se.            __________________            Carlos  Lugo  Fiol, Acting  Solicitor  General,  and  Lorraine  J.            __________________                                    ____________        Riefkohl, Assistant Solicitor General, Department of Justice, on brief        ________        for appellees.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  Plaintiff, Orlando Diaz-Ojeda, appeals                      __________            from  the district court's denial of his motion to proceed in                                                                       __            forma pauperis.  See Roberts v. United States District Court,            _____ ________   ___ _______    ____________________________            339  U.S. 844, 845 (1950)  (holding that denial  of motion to            proceed  in forma  pauperis is  immediately appealable).   We                     __ _____  ________            affirm.                      Under 28  U.S.C.    1915(a), a court  may authorize            the  commencement of a  law suit "without  prepayment of fees            and  costs or  security  therefor,  by  a  person  who  makes            affidavit  that  he  is unable  to  pay  such  costs or  give            security therefor."   A  district court's determination  of a            party's ability  to pay such  costs is a  "determination that            will 'not  be lightly  overturned.'" United States  v. Lyons,                                                 _____________     _____            898 F.2d  210, 216  (1st Cir.  1990) (citation  omitted). See                                                                      ___            also  Cross v. General Motors Corp., 721 F.2d 1152, 1157 (8th            ____  _____    ____________________            Cir.  1983) ("Under 28 U.S.C.   1915, the decision whether to            grant  or deny in forma  pauperis status is  within the sound            discretion of the trial court").                      We  have carefully  reviewed the  record, including            plaintiff's affidavit  accompanying his motion to  proceed in                                                                       __            forma pauperis, and the parties'  briefs.  The record reveals            _____ ________            that plaintiff lives with  his parents, pays no rent,  has no            dependents  and  receives  government unemployment  payments.            Under these  circumstances, we  conclude that payment  of the            $120  filing fee and other  costs would not deprive plaintiff            of the "necessities of  life." Adkins v. DuPont de  Nemours &                                           ______    ____________________            Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948).  Therefore, the district            _________            court  did not  abuse its  discretion in  denying plaintiff's            motion.                        The district  court's order  of December 13,  1994,            denying plaintiff's  motion to  proceed in forma  pauperis is                                                    __ _____  ________            affirmed.            ________                                         -3-
