Full Opinion

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 5D2024-2407 LT Case No. 2023-CA-2188 _____________________________ ANGEL E. GASTON, Appellant, v. LIFESTREAM BEHAVIORAL CENTER, INC., Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County. Brian J. Welke, Judge. Angel E. Gaston, Bushnell, pro se. Scott A. Cole, Francesca M. Stein, and Isabella Sanchez, of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for Appellee. John K. Londot and M. Hope Keating, of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tallahassee, Amicus Curiae, for The Florida Association of Court Clerks. October 23, 2026 SOUD, J. Appellant Angel Gaston appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his civil suit against Appellee Lifestream Behavioral Center, Inc. and four unknown defendants for failing to serve the summons and complaint within the time required by Florida law. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We affirm. Gaston filed a Complaint alleging a false arrest by the Leesburg Police Department and involuntary commitment under Florida’s Baker Act. Pertinent here, he asserts claims against Lifestream Behavioral Center, Inc., asserting he was improperly evaluated, held against his will, and assaulted by four unknown personnel. 1 Gaston, a prisoner, was found indigent by the clerk of court. Gaston argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his case for failing to timely serve the summons and complaint upon the defendants below, as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j). Rather, distilled to its essence, Gaston posits that the clerk of court 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. His argument fails because it is premised on a misunderstanding of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the requirements placed upon him thereby. 2 1 Gaston filed a separate complaint against Lake County and numerous other defendants in lower court case no. 35–2023–CA– 002427–AXXXX–XX, asserting numerous claims stemming from his arrest by the Leesburg Police Department and subsequent detention. After the trial court dismissed that complaint for failure to serve initial process and pleading, this Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. See Gaston v. Lake County (Gaston I), 407 So. 3d 515 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025) (reversing and remanding for the trial court to determine if Gaston’s claims were legally sufficient and, if so, to follow the procedures set forth in section 57.085(5), Florida Statutes). 2 Pursuant to this Court’s order, the Florida Association of Court Clerks submitted its Amicus Curiae Brief addressing actions taken by Florida clerks of court in cases filed by indigent prisoners, 2 Generally, when the plaintiff initiating a legal action is indigent, that party, if not a prisoner, is entitled by Florida law to “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.” § 57.081(1), Fla. Stat. (2022). Such services “are limited to” those identified in the statute, which include filing fees and service of process. See id. Any party certified to be indigent under section 27.52 or 57.082 “is not required to prepay costs to a court, clerk, or sheriff and is not required to pay filing fees or charges for issuance of a summons.” Id. If a plaintiff is a prisoner, as is Gaston, rather than waiving the prepayment of costs, section 57.085 provides for a deferral of payment of such costs. See § 57.085, Fla. Stat. Such a prisoner must file an affidavit of indigence, which is reviewed by the clerk of court. See § 57.085(2)–(3). If the clerk concludes the prisoner is indigent, then “[b]efore an indigent prisoner may . . . initiate any judicial proceeding, 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.” See § 57.085(6). If permitted to proceed, then the prisoner is entitled to receive the services provided by the courts, clerks, and sheriffs and defer the payment of the related costs as contemplated by the statute. See § 57.085(3)–(7). Based on this statute, Gaston insists that he, as an indigent prisoner, is entitled to have the trial court or clerk of court consider his status as an indigent prisoner and assist him with the issuance of summons and serve process upon the defendants. But his argument simply misperceives Florida law. The services provided by the court, clerk, and sheriff are those the law requires of each. 3 Pertinent here, upon the filing of a complaint commencing a legal action, a “summons or other process including issuing summons and other matters regarding service of process. 3 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. 3 authorized by law must be promptly issued by the clerk . . . under the clerk’s . . . signature and the seal of the court and delivered for service.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070(a). Then, the summons issued by the clerk, which “shall be directed to all and singular the sheriffs of the state,” § 48.011, Fla. Stat., is to be served upon a defendant by “the sheriff of the county where the person to be served is found” or a private process server, § 48.021(1), Fla. Stat. Importantly, however, the clerk of court simply issues the summons presented. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070(a). The burden is upon the plaintiff to prepare the summons that is to be issued by the clerk. See Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So. 2d 293, 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (Peterson, J., concurring specially) (“Preparation of the summons with a copy of the complaint attached is the burden of the petitioner, not the clerk.”). Further, the clerk of court does not serve the summons and complaint upon a defendant. 4 As the plain language of Rule 1.070 makes clear in implementing Chapter 48 of Florida Statutes, after the summons is issued by the clerk, it is “delivered for service.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070(a). The sheriff or process server then serves the initial process upon each defendant. See § 48.021, Fla. Stat.; see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070(b). Here, there is nothing in the record before us that suggests Gaston presented to the clerk of court a completed summons 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. Gaston having failed to prepare the summons for each defendant, there was nothing for the clerk 4 As the Florida Association of Court Clerks noted in its amicus brief, there are two exceptions to the clerk of court’s detachment from service of initial process. See Fla. Sm. Cl. R. 7.070(a) (service upon Florida residents by certified mail, return receipt requested); see also § 48.183, Fla. Stat. (service of process in action for possession of premises), § 48.184, Fla. Stat. (service of process for removal of unknown parties in possession). 4 to issue and, resultingly, nothing for the appropriate sheriff (or process server) to serve upon the defendants. As a result, we AFFIRM the trial court’s dismissal of Gaston’s complaint for failure to serve process as required by Rule 1.070(j). It is so ordered. MAKAR and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ 5