Wakefield v. Franklin County Sheriff Dept. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ERIC L. WAKEFIELD,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANKLIN COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT, DAVID BARTONI, and
KYLE BACON,
Defendants.
Case No. 22-cv-1766-JPG
ERIC L. WAKEFIELD,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANKLIN COUNTY JAIL, ANTHONY
SKOBEL, S. BARRA, KIETH LAMPLEY,
MATT PEMBERTON, ANN LYTLE,
FRANKIE VALESQUEZ, JOHN
WHEATLEY, MEGAN DUIGUIN,
MALLORY KELLEY, KENNY JACOBS,
GAGE DARNELL, PATRICIA JACKSON,
GERALD DORRIS, CASEY JACKSON,
JACOB BARTONI, and ZANE YOUNG,
Defendants
Case No. 22-cv-1768-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on two motions filed by plaintiff Eric L. Wakefield
for sanctions against his former assigned counsel Kathryn Boyle and Alyssa Weitkamp and
opposing counsel Joseph Bleyer (Docs. 97 & 102).
I. First Motion (Doc. 97)
The Court will consider Wakefield’s first motion because he filed it during a period
Case 3:22-cv-01766-JPG Document 103 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
where he was not represented by counsel. Boyle and Weitkamp had been relieved of their
assignment, and Wakefield’s new counsel had not yet appeared. Wakefield faults Boyle and
Weitkamp for recording a telephone conversation they had with him and neglecting his case in
some unspecified way. He also faults his counsel and opposing counsel for concealing evidence.
He asserts many other wrongs without any specific factual allegations.
To the extent Wakefield asserts violations of his rights under the First, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, those provisions only bind government actors, and
Wakefield’s former counsel were private attorneys. Thus, they cannot violate those
constitutional rights unless they act in concert with government actors. Wakefield has alleged no
facts showing they were.
Further, none of the conduct he alleges violates any rule of professional conduct or the
attorney-client privilege. It appears to the Court that Boyle and Weitkamp did an outstanding job
of representing a difficult client. Again, they have the Court’s thanks. Accordingly, the Court
DENIES Wakefield’s first motion for sanctions (Doc. 97).
II. Second Motion (Doc. 102)
The latter motion (Doc. 102) was efiled on January 16, 2026, using the efiling system at
Wakefield’s institution of incarceration, Danville Correctional Center. Wakefield filed this
motion pro se, although he was represented by counsel at the time of filing. His newly appointed
counsel entered an appearance on January 8, 2026 (Doc. 100). “[A] defendant who is
represented by counsel relinquishes the right to file his own pro se submissions.” United States
v. Khatib, 606 F. App’x 845, 847 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Williams, 495 F.3d 810,
813 (7th Cir. 2007)). “Representation by counsel and self-representation are mutually
exclusive.” Cain v. Peters, 972 F.2d 748, 750 (7th Cir. 1992). So-called “hybrid representation”
Case 3:22-cv-01766-JPG Document 103 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
confuses and extends matters at trial and in other proceedings. See United States v. Oreye, 263
F.3d 669, 672-73 (7th Cir. 2001). The Court may strike as improper any such pro se motion.
See, e.g., United States v. Gwiazdzinski, 141 F.3d 784, 787 (7th Cir. 1998). The Court
STRIKES Wakefield’s second motion for sanctions because he filed it while he was represented
by counsel (Doc. 102).
Prior to the motions stricken by this order, Wakefield had filed pro se motions on at least
two separate occasions while represented by counsel. Both times, the Court explained to him
that he cannot filed his own motions while he is represented by counsel (Docs. 61 & 89). It
further warned him that if he continued to make further pro se filings while he is represented by
counsel, the Court would instruct the Clerk of Court to refuse to accept them for filing (Doc. 89).
Nevertheless, Wakefield has persisted in his efforts to file pro se motions and documents while
represented by counsel. Consequently, as it warned it would do, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk
of Court to refuse to accept from Wakefield any pro se motion or document while he is
represented by counsel and to return any such tendered motion or document to him unfiled.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send a copy of this order to Boyle and
Weitkamp.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 29, 2026
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:22-cv-01766-JPG Document 103 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>