Diaz-Ojeda v. Pedro Toledo ( 1995 )


Menu:
  • 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    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-