Allison v. State of Illinois

Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMONTE ALLISON, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Respondent.
Case No. 3:25-CV-00229-NJR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Petitioner Jamonte Allison, Jr. is an inmate at the Lawrence Correctional Center
within the Illinois Department of Corrections. (Doc. 1). He “do[esn’t] have a federal case”
and, instead, argues that his “detainment [in state custody] is unlawful.” (Id.). He
contends that he was granted executive clemency by President Joseph Biden and that, as
a result, his detention in state custody must end. (Id.). The remainder of his petition is
incomprehensibly drafted, offers very little (if any) information about the nature of his
state conviction and sentence, and fails to develop a legal basis for habeas relief.
Nevertheless, the Court construes Allison’s petition as raising a claim that he should be
released from state custody due to the President’s grant of executive clemency.
This matter is before the Court on preliminary review of the Petition under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases in United States District Courts provides that upon preliminary consideration
by the district judge, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits
Case 3:25-cv-00229-NJR Document 15 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 5
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the
petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.”
As noted, Allison appears to argue that the state of Illinois must release him from
custody because he was granted executive clemency by President Biden. 1 This is not the
first time he has raised this argument. On July 22, 2004, Allison was charged in a third
superseding indictment with one count of conspiracy to distribute five grams or more of
crack cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B) (2002). See United States v. Allison,
4:04-cr-40021-JPG-2 (Allison Crim. Dkt. Doc. 78). On November 7, 2005, Allison was
sentenced to 240 months in prison after pleading guilty to the charge against him. (Id.
Docs. 218, 241).
On August 5, 2016, President Barack Obama commuted Allison’s sentence,
shortening his term of imprisonment until December 1, 2016. (Id. Docs. 454, 524). Six years
after Allison’s commutation became effective, Allison filed a motion for a new trial in this
Court. (Id. Doc. 512). On February 10, 2025, he filed a separate “motion for release from
custody per clemency grant.” (Id. Doc. 523). Judge J. Phil Gilbert criticized these motions
as “barely legible” and “nonsensical.” (Id. Doc. 524). The only discernible argument Judge
Gilbert identified was the same one Allison raises here: that he is entitled to release from
state custody due to the President’s commutation of his federal sentence. (Id.). Judge
Gilbert denied Allison’s motions for lack of jurisdiction. (Id.). He also explained that
1 Allison has offered no documentary evidence of an executive grant of clemency from President Biden.
However, in a separate criminal case in this Court, United States v. Allison, 4:04-cr-40021-JPG-2, Allison
received an executive grant of clemency from President Barack Obama on August 5, 2016. (Allison Crim.
Dkt., Doc. 454).
Case 3:25-cv-00229-NJR Document 15 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 5
although Allison “is at liberty to file a habeas petition” under section 2254, “it is not clear
from the record, nor from the decipherable portions of his motions, that he is making
claims that would warrant said habeas relief.” (Id.). This brings us to Allison’s instant
habeas petition.
A petition seeking habeas corpus relief is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 when
a petitioner challenges the fact or duration of confinement and seeks immediate or
speedier release. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 490 (1973); Waletzki v. Keohane, 13 F.3d
1079, 1080 (7th Cir. 1994). Habeas relief may be granted where the prisoner is in custody
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(a).
Allison argues that he should be released from state custody because he received
an executive grant of clemency from the President of the United States. This argument is
little more than a retread of his argument in his motions for a new trial and for release
from 	custody. 	Allison’s 	petition, 	like 	these 	prior 	motions, 	is 	almost 	entirely
incomprehensible. And to the extent that he does raise a discernible claim—that the grant
of executive clemency entitles him to release from state custody—he is plainly wrong.
The Constitution gives the President the “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for
Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 2
(emphasis added). “[T]he words ‘for offenses against the United States’ were inserted . . .,
presumably to make clear that the pardon of the President was to operate upon offenses
against the United States as distinguished from offenses against the states.” Ex Parte
Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 113 (1925). Judge Gilbert previously explained, consistent with
Case 3:25-cv-00229-NJR Document 15 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 5
these authorities, that “our system of government does not allow the President of the
United States to override the law enforcement of any particular state; if that is his basis
for filing a § 2254 petition, then he is unlikely to succeed.” (Allison Crim. Dkt. Doc. 532).
Allison appears to have offered the same argument in the instant petition, perhaps
hoping that a different judge might reach a different result. If that is his goal, it will not
work. The Court agrees with Judge Gilbert that black letter law prohibits it from
entertaining Allison’s habeas petition seeking release from state custody on the basis of
the President’s grant of executive clemency. The commutation of his sentence applied to
his federal sentence only.
DISPOSITION
For these reasons, the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ for Habeas Corpus
filed by Petitioner Jamonte Allison, Jr. (Doc. 1) is DENIED with prejudice. All other
pending motions are DENIED as moot. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment
accordingly and close this case.
CERTIFICATE OF A PPEALABILITY
A certificate of appealability is required to appeal from the dismissal or denial of
a Section 2254 petition. See F ED. R. A PP . P. 22(b); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Pursuant to Rule 11
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this Court must “issue or deny a certificate of
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A certificate should
be issued only where a petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In order for a certificate of appealability to
issue, 	a 	petitioner 	must 	show 	that 	“reasonable 	jurists” 	would 	find 	the 	Court’s
Case 3:25-cv-00229-NJR Document 15 Filed 01/13/26 Page 4 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 5 of 5
“assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” See Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115 (2017). Here, no reasonable jurist
would find it debatable that this Court’s ruling is correct. Accordingly, the Court denies
a certificate of appealability. Allison may reapply to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit for a certificate of appealability if he wishes to pursue an appeal.
See F ED. R. A PP . P. 22(b); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1).
NOTICE
If Allison wishes to appeal the dismissal of this action, he must file a notice of
appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. A PP . P. 4(a)(1)(A).
Allison must list each issue he intends to appeal in the notice of appeal and in his motion
for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, if he chooses to file one. See F ED. R. A PP . P. 24(a)(1)(C).
If Allison chooses to appeal, he will be liable for the $605.00 appellate filing fee
irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. See F ED. R. A PP . P. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
A proper and timely motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may
toll the 30-day appeal deadline. F ED. R. A PP . P. 4(a)(4). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed
no more than 28 days after the entry of the judgment, and this 28-day deadline cannot be
extended. Other motions, including a Rule 60 motion for relief from a final judgment, do
not toll the deadline for an appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 13, 2026
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00229-NJR Document 15 Filed 01/13/26 Page 5 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>