Court Opinion

ID: 9470994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:22:49.748317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:13.771875
License: Public Domain

RANDALL, Circuit Judge,
with whom REAVLEY, Circuit Judge, joins, specially concurring:
For the reasons set forth in the Per Curiam opinion, I concur in the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ section 1983 claim for failure to state a claim. I do not agree with the *523unsupported statement in the Per Curiam opinion that “Lassiter makes any claim for class relief impossible in this case by removing the commonality of fact necessary to the maintenance of a class action,” at 518, nor do I understand why the statement appears in the opinion. If it is correct, then we have no plaintiff and no ease or controversy, and the dismissal of the complaint would not be a dismissal for failure to state a claim (as it is intended to be) but would instead be a dismissal for want of jurisdiction.
Finally, I think it important for this court to recognize that the Supreme Court of Florida in 1975 adopted the case-by-case approach to the right to counsel for indigent parents in Florida dependency proceedings, the approach that a majority of this court has now concluded is required by Lassiter. Potvin v. Keller, 313 So.2d 703 (Fla.1975).