Key Points

  • The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of Angel E. Gaston’s suit against Lifestream Behavioral Center Inc. for failure to serve process under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j).
  • An indigent prisoner permitted to proceed under section 57.085 defers payment of costs but must still prepare the summons for each defendant.
  • Under Rule 1.070(a), the clerk issues the summons presented and delivers it for service, and the sheriff or a private process server serves it.
  • The court identified exceptions in which clerks take part in service, including small-claims service by certified mail and service in possession-of-premises actions.
  • The opinion states that it clarifies dicta in the court’s 2025 decision in Gaston v. Lake County, 407 So. 3d 515.

A Florida appeals court held Friday that an indigent prisoner who files a civil lawsuit must still prepare the summons for each defendant, affirming the dismissal of an inmate’s suit over his involuntary commitment under the state’s Baker Act because the defendants were not timely served.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled against Angel E. Gaston, a prisoner who represented himself from Bushnell. Judge Soud wrote the opinion, and Judges Makar and Eisnaugle concurred. The panel upheld a Lake County circuit judge’s order dismissing Gaston’s complaint against Lifestream Behavioral Center Inc. and four unknown defendants for failure to serve the summons and complaint within the time Florida law requires.

The decision sets out which tasks fall to courts, clerks and sheriffs when an indigent prisoner sues. A state statute lets such a prisoner defer court costs, the panel explained, but the statute does not move to the clerk the plaintiff’s job of preparing a summons. Clerks issue the summons, the court held, and sheriffs or private process servers deliver it.

Gaston’s complaint alleged a false arrest by the Leesburg Police Department and involuntary commitment under the Baker Act. His claims against Lifestream asserted that he was improperly evaluated, held against his will and assaulted by four unknown personnel. The clerk of court found Gaston indigent. Circuit Judge Brian J. Welke later dismissed the case for failure to timely serve the summons and complaint, as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j).

On appeal, Gaston argued that the clerk failed to consider his circumstances as an incarcerated indigent litigant and was "duty bound to assist him in issuing a summons to each defendant and effectuating service," as the opinion summarized his position. The panel rejected that view. "His argument fails because it is premised on a misunderstanding of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the requirements placed upon him thereby," Judge Soud wrote.

The opinion traced two statutes. Under section 57.081, an indigent plaintiff who is not a prisoner may "receive the services of the courts, sheriffs, and clerks, with respect to such proceedings, despite his or her present inability to pay for these services." That statute excuses a party certified as indigent from prepaying costs and from paying "filing fees or charges for issuance of a summons," the court noted.

Prisoners proceed under a different provision. Section 57.085 provides for a deferral of costs rather than a waiver, the panel explained. A prisoner files an affidavit of indigence, which the clerk reviews. If the clerk finds the prisoner indigent, the statute provides that "the court must review the prisoner’s claim to determine whether it is legally sufficient to state a cause of action for which the court has jurisdiction and may grant relief." A prisoner allowed to proceed then receives those services and defers payment.

Gaston read that entitlement to require the court or clerk to help him issue summonses and serve the defendants. "But his argument simply misperceives Florida law," Judge Soud wrote. "The services provided by the court, clerk, and sheriff are those the law requires of each."

Rule 1.070(a) requires the clerk to issue a summons promptly under the clerk’s signature and the court’s seal and to have it "delivered for service," the opinion noted. Under state statutes, the sheriff of the county where the defendant is found, or a private process server, then serves it.

"Importantly, however, the clerk of court simply issues the summons presented," the court held. "The burden is upon the plaintiff to prepare the summons that is to be issued by the clerk." For that point the panel cited a special concurrence by Judge Peterson in Al-Hakim v. State, a 2001 Fifth District decision, which stated, "Preparation of the summons with a copy of the complaint attached is the burden of the petitioner, not the clerk."

The panel also held that "the clerk of court does not serve the summons and complaint upon a defendant." In a footnote, the court acknowledged "two exceptions to the clerk of court’s detachment from service of initial process," which the Florida Association of Court Clerks identified in a friend-of-the-court brief the court had ordered it to file on clerks’ practices in indigent-prisoner cases. The exceptions cover service on Florida residents by certified mail under the small claims rules and service in actions for possession of premises and for removal of unknown parties in possession.

Applying those rules, the panel found that the record contained nothing suggesting Gaston had presented a completed summons to the clerk for issuance. "Neither Gaston’s status as an indigent prisoner, nor any of Gaston’s other numerous filings in the trial court, relieved him of this burden or entitled him to services of the clerk’s office beyond that provided by statute or rule," Judge Soud wrote. "Gaston having failed to prepare the summons for each defendant, there was nothing for the clerk to issue and, resultingly, nothing for the appropriate sheriff (or process server) to serve upon the defendants."

The ruling revisits language from an earlier appeal by the same plaintiff. In a separate suit against Lake County and other defendants over his arrest and detention, the trial court had dismissed Gaston’s complaint for failure to serve process. The Fifth District reversed in 2025 in Gaston v. Lake County, 407 So. 3d 515, and directed the trial court to decide whether his claims were legally sufficient and, if so, to follow the procedures in section 57.085(5).

In a footnote to Friday’s opinion, the panel wrote, "By setting forth the respective responsibilities of the courts, clerks of court, and sheriffs when an indigent prisoner seeks to file a civil cause of action, we clarify dicta in Gaston I related thereto."

Gaston represented himself. Lifestream was represented by Scott A. Cole, Francesca M. Stein and Isabella Sanchez of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. The Florida Association of Court Clerks was represented by John K. Londot and M. Hope Keating of Greenberg Traurig, P.A.

The decision is not final until the court disposes of any timely and authorized motion under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.