JIMMY CRAFT, APPELLANT,
v.
SARAH CLARK HOLLOWAY, ESQUIRE, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2008-03-05
No. 4D06-4011
TAYLOR, J., concurs., FARMER, J., dissents without opinion.
975 So. 2d 620 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2008) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Craft appeals the dismissal of his civil complaint under Florida Statute §57.085, which permits pre-screening of frivolous suits by indigent prisoners. The court holds that the trial court erred by dismissing the case without first determining whether Craft was indigent, as required by statute.


Holding

Yes. The trial court erred in dismissing the case without first determining that Craft was indigent, as §57.085's pre-screening provisions only apply to actions filed by indigent prisoners and indigency status must be determined before dismissal.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court must determine a prisoner's indigency status before prescreening the prisoner's lawsuit under section 57.085, Florida Statutes.

[2] Dismissal of a prisoner's complaint for insufficient legal grounds under section 57.085, Florida Statutes, is premature if the prisoner has not yet been adjudicated indig…

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“The pres-creening provisions of section 57.085(6) only apply to actions filed by 'indigent' prisoners.”

Establishes that indigency status is a prerequisite for pre-screening under the statute

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Craft attempted to file a complaint against Holloway after an earlier complaint against Holloway's client was dismissed. The trial court dismissed Cra…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
SHAHOOD, C.J.

SHAHOOD, C.J.

Jimmy Craft (“appellant”) appeals from the circuit court’s dismissal of his complaint pursuant to section 57.085, Florida Statutes. The order found insufficient legal grounds for appellant’s cause of action and directed the Clerk of Court not to file the case. We hold that it was error to dismiss the case without first finding appellant indigent.

Appellant attempted to file his complaint against appellee after the circuit court dismissed appellant’s earlier complaint against appellee’s client. The trial court rendered an order pursuant to section 57.085, Florida Statutes, finding insufficient legal grounds for a cause of action and directing the Clerk of Court not to file the case. Appellant was later determined to be indigent. Appellant argues in this appeal that the trial court erred in refusing to file his case.

Section 57.085 attempts to solve the problem of frivolous civil suits by indigent prison inmates by requiring that lawsuits brought by indigent inmates be screened by the court before being accepted for filing. See Reed v. Mims, 711 So. 2d 169, 170-71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). “The prescreening provisions of section 57.085(6) only apply to actions filed by ‘indigent’ prisoners.” Drayton v. Moore, 807 So. 2d 819, 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). As a result, a prisoner must be adjudicated indigent before his case can be prescreened. Id.; see also Osterback v. Turner, 837 So. 2d 604, 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (reversing and remanding where trial court determined appellant’s complaint legally insufficient prior to adjudicating appellant indigent). The Drayton court described the correct procedure under the statute:

[IJndigency status must be determined first.... When a trial court dismisses a case under section 57.085, it must retain all original pleadings necessary to effectuate appellate review. If the statute is properly applied, prescreening and dismissals will occur only in cases where a prisoner has been granted indigency status. Once indigency status is granted, we presume that a case file with an assigned case number will be opened in which the original pleadings and any resulting court orders will be maintained.

Drayton, 807 So. 2d at 823.

The circuit court’s dismissal of appellant’s complaint under section 57.085 in the present case was premature because he had not yet been adjudicated indigent. Nor would this court be able to review the propriety of the trial court’s order even if appellant had been determined indigent first, as the record does not include appellant’s complaint.

We reverse and remand for processing of appellant’s case under the procedure described above.

Reversed and Remanded.

TAYLOR, J., concurs.

FARMER, J., dissents without opinion.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Jones v. Ferguson, 979 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
    …Statutes (2007). The order found insufficient legal grounds for Jones’s cause of action and directed the Clerk of Court not to file the case. We hold that it was error to dismiss the case without first finding Jones indigent. See Craft v. Holloway, 975 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (finding the trial court’s dismissal of the appellant’s complaint under section 57.085 was premature because he had not yet been adjudicated indigent as required by section 57.085(6)). We do not reach the issue of whether Jones…
  • Jones v. Captain Ana Joseph, 989 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
    …’s suit pursuant to subsection (6) of the statute until it has first adjudicated the prisoner indigent. See Drayton v. Moore, 807 So. 2d 819, 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see also Jones v. Ferguson, 979 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Craft v. Holloway, 975 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Osterback v. Turner, 837 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Appellant insists that the trial court violated the principles expressed in these cases and that the judge should not have “prescreened” his petition and dismissed it for…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw