"The premise of [section 57.085] was that indigent inmates had abused the cost waiver [statute] by filing numerous frivolous lawsuits." Reed v. Mims, 711 So.2d 169, 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). To effectuate this intent, section 57.085 requires circuit courts to screen indigent inmate complaints to determine whether the action is legally sufficient to state a cause of action.

We disagree with the trial court's interpretation of the statute, and we agree with the other district courts that have held that the statute requires trial courts to screen claims in amended complaints, not just those set forth in the original complaints. SeeReed v. Mims , 711 So.2d 169, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (affirming the dismissal of the original complaint, but concluding that plaintiff was entitled to leave to file an amended complaint, which "will trigger another section 57.085 review" by the trial court). See alsoJames v. Goryl , 62 So.3d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (observing that an "amended complaint will also be subject to preliminary review under section 57.085(6)").

We reverse. As noted in Reed v. Mims, 711 So.2d 169, 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), section 57.085 was enacted in 1996, to address "a perceived problem of frivolous civil lawsuits filed by indigent prison inmates" and provides, in pertinent part: (6) Before an indigent prisoner may intervene in or 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. The court shall dismiss all or part of an indigent prisoner's claim which:

Despite these deficiencies, the trial court should have granted Mr. Spradley leave to amend his complaint before dismissing his action. See Coby v. Food World, Inc. , 746 So.2d 570, 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) ; Reed v. Mims , 711 So.2d 169, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) ("[W]here it appears that a pleading's deficiencies can be cured by an amendment, a reasonable opportunity for amendment should be allowed.").For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court's order dismissing Mr. Spradley's complaint and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Furthermore, the lower court's interpretation is reinforced by the federal courts' interpretation of a similarly worded federal statute. See Reed v. Mims, 711 So. 2d 169, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding that section 57.085 was patterned after federal law and, as a result, federal precedent was persuasive). The corresponding federal law addressing frivolous lawsuits by indigent inmates states in pertinent part:

Because James may be able to correct these defects, we reverse the dismissal of his complaint with prejudice and remand to allow him to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint will also be subject to preliminary review under section 57.085(6). See Reed v. Mims, 711 So.2d 169, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). REVERSED and REMANDED.

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.

To the extent the complaint may have suffered from some pleading deficiencies, Brown, who had not previously amended his complaint other than to increase the amount of damages sought necessitating the transfer between courts, should not have suffered dismissal of the complaint without leave to amend. See Trotter v. Ford Motor Credit Corp., 868 So.2d 593, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Reed v. Mims, 711 So.2d 169, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Conclusion

Affirmed. See § 57.085(2), Fla. Stat. (2000); Urrutia v. Harrisburg County Police Dep't, 91 F.3d 451, 458 n. 13 (3d Cir.1996) (under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, merely "submitting an in forma pauperis complaint to the clerk does not result in commencement of the litigation and satisfaction of the statute of limitations."); Reed v. Mims, 711 So.2d 169, 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) ("It is evident that [§ 57.085] is patterned after similarly worded 28 U.S.C. § 1915.")

However, a dismissal pursuant to section 57.085, Florida Statutes (1999), is reviewable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(A). As noted in Reed v. Mims, 711 So.2d 169, 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), the enactment of section 57.085 was intended to address a perceived problem of frivolous lawsuits filed by indigent prisoners who had abused the cost-waiver provisions of existing law. Subsections 57.085(2), (4), and (5) allow prisoners who qualify to be granted a full or partial waiver of prepayment of court costs and fees and to thereafter make payment in installments if and when funds are deposited into their inmate accounts.