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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-