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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-