Case Name: Yolonda Deyvonne BURT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stan YATES, Former Warden, Warden, FCC Coleman-U.S. Probation Office I, Tracy W. Johns, R. Vickers, Correctional Officer, FNU Grant, Lieutenant, FNU Burke, Correctional Officer, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-06
Citations: 267 F. App'x 906
Docket Number: No. 07-14375
Parties: Yolonda Deyvonne BURT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stan YATES, Former Warden, Warden, FCC Coleman—U.S. Probation Office I, Tracy W. Johns, R. Vickers, Correctional Officer, FNU Grant, Lieutenant, FNU Burke, Correctional Officer, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before CARNES, BARKETT, and HILL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 267
Pages: 906–907

Head Matter:
Yolonda Deyvonne BURT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stan YATES, Former Warden, Warden, FCC Coleman—U.S. Probation Office I, Tracy W. Johns, R. Vickers, Correctional Officer, FNU Grant, Lieutenant, FNU Burke, Correctional Officer, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-14375
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
March 6, 2008.
Virginia C. Hamner, Steckley L. Lee, Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc., Gainesville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Before CARNES, BARKETT, and HILL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs complaint was dismissed sua sponte by the district court for failure to pay the partial initial filing fee. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the district court took any steps to ascertain whether the failure to pay was within the prisoner's control, as required by Wilson v. Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315, 1321 (11th Cir. 2002). Nor is there anything in the record to indicate that the plaintiff was aware of the local rule of procedure, M.D. Fla. Local Rule of Procedure 1.03(e), upon which the district court relied in dismissing plaintiffs complaint, as required by Czetli v. Secretary, 212 Fed.Appx. 879, 881 (11th Cir.2006). Inasmuch as both Wilson and Czetli clearly establish that such steps must be taken before the district court may sua sponte dismiss an indigent prisoner's pro se complaint, it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to have dismissed the complaint. Wilson, 313 F.3d at 1320. Accordingly, we vacate the dismissal and remand the case for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
. As a factual matter, it appears that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is to blame for the failure to timely pay the filing fees, as the required amounts were deducted from plaintiff's prison account within the time required by the court, but the BOP failed to transmit the funds to the Clerk of the district court in a timely manner.