O'Neall v. Minor

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for declaratory and preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED. ECF No. 33 . Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 05/29/2019. (KCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
PATRICK T. O’NEALL,
Petitioner,
v.
DEAN MINOR,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-CV-1297-AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion for declaratory and
preliminary injunctive relief. ECF No. 33. For the reasons set forth below, the motion
will be denied.
BACKGROUND
In 2011, Petitioner Patrick O’Neall was convicted of driving while intoxicated and
sentenced, as an aggravated offender, to 15 years in prison. Execution of that sentence
was suspended, and Petitioner was placed on probation. In 2013, Petitioner’s probation
was revoked and his was sentence executed. After pursuing post-conviction relief in state
court, Petitioner filed a petition for habeas relief in this Court in 2017. That petition
remains pending. Petitioner was released on parole in July 2018.
On April 22, 2019, Petitioner filed the present motion for declaratory and
preliminary injunctive relief on the basis that he is not in fact the “artificial
person(s)/commercial entity(ies)/legal fiction(s)” Patrick Thomas O’Neall but rather a
“Private Natural Man, a Live Sentient Being of flesh and blood, an American National

and NOT a corporate U.S. citizen,” intervening on behalf of O’Neall and not subject to
the laws of the United States or any state. (ECF No. 33 p. 2) Petitioner claims, therefore,
that the underlying conviction against O’Neall was entered without jurisdiction and is
invalid, so his habeas petition should be granted.
DISCUSSION
In considering whether to grant injunctive relief, the Court must consider the
following factors: (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the balance
between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties
litigant; (3) the probability that the movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public
interest. Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981) (en
banc).
The Court finds that injunctive relief is not warranted because there is no
possibility that Petitioner’s claim could succeed on the merits. Petitioner essentially
argues that the state court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because he is not Patrick
O’Neall but rather a sovereign citizen not subject to the laws of Missouri or the United
States. This argument finds no support in American jurisprudence. See U.S. v. Schmitt,
784 F.2d 880, 882 (8th Cir. 1986) (deeming “entirely frivolous” appellants’ argument
that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them because they were “Natural
Freemen” and not a “juristic identity”). Consequently, Petitioner’s motion for
declaratory and preliminary injunctive relief will be denied. Petitioner’s habeas petition
is fully briefed, remains pending, and will be addressed in due course.

2

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for declaratory and
preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED. ECF No. 33.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 29th day of May, 2019.

3