FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT DECEMBER 27, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12344 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 0 0 1 6 5 - CV - O RL- 2 8 - K RS S H A N E P . C Z E T L I ,
P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S E C R E T A R Y , D O C , F L A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 27, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , B L A C K an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

F l or i dapr i s one rS ha ne P . C z e t l i , pr oc e e di ng p ro se , appeal s the di stri ct co u rt ’ s s u a s

p o n te d is m is s a l w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e o f h is 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d is m is s e d th e p e titio n b e c au s e C z e tli f a ile d to p a yth e ap p r o p r ia te f i l i ng f e e , s ubm i ta n a f

f i da vi tof i ndi ge nc y , orf

i l e a n in fo rm a p a u

p e r is ( I FP) ap p lic a tio n . C z e tli a ls o ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to r e c ons i de r , i n w hi c h he r e que s t e d hi s § 2254 pe t i t i on be r e i ns t a t e d. W e gr a nt e d a cert i fi cat e o f ap p eal ab i l i ty o n th e fo l l o w i n g i ssu es: (1) W hether the di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed the p ro se 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 25 4 p et i t i on w i tho utfi rs tgi vi ng the pet i t i on erno t i ce and an o p p o rtu n ity to p a y th e f ilin g f e e o rf ile th e r e q u ir e d d o c u m e n ta tio n to pr oc e e d in fo rm a p a u

p e r is . ( 2 ) W he t he r t he d i st ri ct co u rt ab u sed i t s d i scret i o n i n de ny i ng t he pe t i t i one r ’ s m ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on of

the d i s m i s s a l w i thout pr e j udi c e a f t e rhe s ubm i tt e d a n i ndi ge nc y appl i c a t i on. A s an i ni t i al m att er , the C O A fr am es the i ss ue as w hether the di stri ctcourt p r o p e r ly d is m is s e d C z e tli’s § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n . W h ile th e r e c o r d r e f le c ts C z e tli h a s in fa ctfi l ed on l y am ot i on t o ext end t i m e, ra ther than a § 2 25 4 p et i t i on , the di stri ct courtre peat edl y r ef

erre d t o the m ot i on as a pet i t i on , and o therw i se tre at ed i tas s uc h. T hus , w e w i l l a c c or di ngl y tr e a tC z e t l i ’ s m ot i on t o e xt e nd t i m e a s a§ 2254 pe t i t i on. W e r e v ie w ad is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e rd is m is s in g a n a c tio n f o rf a ilu r e to c o m p ly w ith lo c a l ru le s f

o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . Ki l

go v. R i ck

s , 9 8 3 F .2 d 1 8 9 , 1 9 2 ( 1 1 thIn Bo nn er v. Ci ty of Pricha rd, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) ( en banc ), thi s 1 Court adopted as bindingprec edent all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981. 3 C i r. 19 93 ). P ursuantt o F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 41 (b), a di stri ctcourthas the author i ty t o di s m i s s a c t i ons f orf a i l ur e t o c om pl y w i th al oc a l rul e of the d is tr ic t c o u rt. I

d. T he di stri ctcourtm ayexer ci se thi s pow er s u a s p o n te , pur s ua nt to th e in h e r e n t p o w e ro f f e d e r a l c o u r ts to m a n a g e th e ird o c k e ts . P o n d v . B r a n iff A i rw ays, Inc. , 45 3 F . 2d 34 7, 34 9 (5th C i r. 19 72 ). 1 R u l e 1 . 0 3 (e) o f th e L o cal R u l es o f th e M i d d l e D i stri cto f F l o ri d a st at es: T he C l e rk s ha l l a c c e ptf orf i l i ng a l l pr i s one rc a s e s f i l e d w i th or w i thoutthe r e qui r e d f

i l i ng f e e orappl i c a t i on t o pr oc e e d i n f o rma p a u p e r is . H ow e ve r , apr i s one rc a s e w i l l be s ubj e c tt o di s m i s s a l by th e C o u rt, s u a s

p o n te , i f the f i l i ng f e e i s notpa i d ori f

the appl i c a t i on is n o t f ile d w ith in 3 0 d a y s o f

th e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f

th e a c tio n . In d i scu ssi n g a l o cal ru l e req u i ri n g a t i m el y resp o n se t o a m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss, thi s C ou rtno t ed a l ocal rul e “ shou l d n otse rve a s abasi s f or di sm i ss i ng a p ro se ci vi l ri gh t s c om pl ai ntw here , as here , there i s nothi ng t o i nd i ca t e pl ai nt i ff everw as m ade a w ar e of [ the l ocal rul e] pri or t o d i sm i ss al . ” Mi tc he l l v . I nm an , 682 F . 2d 886, 887 ( 11th C i r . 1982) . F ol l ow i ng Mitc h e ll , w e h e ld ad is tr ic t c o u r t’s lo c a l ru le r e q u ir in g tim e ly o p p o s itio n to am o tio n f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t d id n o t c o n s titu te construct i ve no t i ce t o a p ro se i nm a t e tha tthe m ot i on f ors um m a ry j udgm e nt w o u ld b e ta k e n u n d e ra d v is e m e n t w ith in 1 0 d a y s . Moor e v . Flor i da , 703 F . 2dBe causewe c onclude the district c ourt abused its discretion in sua sponte dismiss ing 2 Cz etli’s petition, we nee d not addre ss the district court’s denial of Czetli’s mot ion for rec onsideration. 4 5 1 6 , 5 2 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) . A ls o , w h e r e ad is tr ic t c o u r t s u a s p o n te di s m i s s e d a s t a t e p r i s o n e r ’ s § 1 9 8 3 c o m p l a i n tf o rf a i l u r e t o p a y a n i n i t i a l p a r t i a l f i l i n g f e e , we v a c a te d a n d r e m a n d e d , c o n c lu d in g th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y n o t ta k in g r e a s o n ab le st eps t o d i sc ov erw hether the pri soner c om pl i ed w i th i t s I F P order t o p ayan i ni t i al p a r tia l f ilin g f e e . W i l s on v . Sar

ge nt , 3 1 3 F .3 d 1 3 1 5 , 1 3 2 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . H e r e , the r e i s no e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d s ugge s t i ng the di s tr i c tc our tm a de C z e t l i a w a r e of

L oc a l R ul e 1. 03( e ) be f or e di s m i s s i ng hi s c a s e . C z e t l i ha d no ac tual no t i ce of the consequences of notcom pl yi ng w i th thi s part i cul arl ocal rul e, a n d th e m e r e e x is te n c e o f th e ru le d id n o t c o n s titu te c o n s tru c tiv e n o tic e to C z e tli, a p ro se in m a te . See Mo o re , 703 F . 2d a t520; Mitc h e ll , 68 2 F . 2d at88 7. F urther, the di stri ctcourtm ade no i nq ui ryas t o w hether C ze t l i com pl i ed w i th the l ocal rul e s orw he the rhi s f

a i l ur e t o c om pl y w a s be y ond hi s c ontr ol be f or e di s m i s s i ng C z e tli’s p e titio n . Se e W i l s on , 3 1 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 1 . T h u s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its di sc re t i on by di sm i ss i ng C ze t l i ’ s pet i t i on w i tho utfi rs tgi vi ng hi m no t i ce and an o p p o r tu n i ty t o p a y th e f i l i n g f e e o rf i l e th e r e q u i r e d d o c u me n t a t i o n t o p r o c e e d I FP. W e v acat e an d rem an d t o th e d i stri ctco u rtfo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. 2 V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.