Opinion
Case No. SC03-2264.
May 21, 2004.
Lower Tribunal No. 1D02-3914.
The Petitioner filed the above entitled petition for writ of mandamus, contending that she has an absolute right to be represented by a non-attorney. According to petitioner, the district court of appeal erred in dismissing her case because, although her response to an order to show cause was not signed by an attorney or by the petitioner herself, it was signed by her "representative." Petitioner has failed to show that she has an absolute right to be represented on appeal by a nonattorney and have her alleged "representative" sign pleadings on her behalf. See, e.g., Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.060(d) (requiring any party not represented by an attorney to sign all pleadings). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is hereby denied on the merits. See Huffman v. State, 813 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000) (holding that in order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the petitioner must show that she has a clear legal right to the requested relief, the respondent has an indisputable legal duty to perform the requested action, and no other adequate remedy is available). Nothing in this order shall be read or construed to mean that petitioner has the right to be represented by a non-attorney.
WELLS, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO and BELL, JJ., concur.