Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted December 13, 2005 Decided January 19, 2006 Before… v. CECIL DAVIS, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted December 13, 2005
Decided January 19, 2006
Before
Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge
AMOS WILSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
No. 05-2724 v.
CECIL DAVIS, Superintendent, Indiana
State Prison,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United
States District Court
for the Northern
District of Indiana,
South Bend Division.
No. 02 C 845
Allen Sharp,
Judge.
Order
Our original decision in this case remanded for
consideration of a single question: Whether the two potential
witnesses who Wilson had identified as "John Doe" existed and,
if so, could be identified.
Wilson v. Davis, No. 03-1431 (7th
Cir. Mar. 2, 2004) (unpublished order).
On remand the district judge recruited counsel for Wilson,
and the parties engaged in discovery. The district judge
concluded, after reviewing the depositions and other evidentiary
materials, that Wilson had failed to establish the existence of
any "John Doe." It necessarily followed that the prison
disciplinary board had not violated the Constitution when it
UNPUBLISHED ORDER
Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-2724 Page 2
refused Wilson's request to produce "John Doe" as a witness at
the hearing.
Wilson's appellate brief (filed
pro se) blames his lawyer
for this outcome; he contends that he received ineffective
assistance. But there is no right to counsel when seeking writs
of habeas corpus, and there is accordingly no ineffective-
assistance doctrine on collateral review. See
Pennsylvania v.
Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987). Demonizing one's lawyer is not a
route to another hearing.
The rest of Wilson's brief is devoted to a constitutional
argument that supposes the existence of the "John Doe"
witnesses. As the district judge found that these are figments
of Wilson's imagination, the argument is unavailing. The
district court's findings are not clearly erroneous. No more
need be said.
Affirmed

-- 2 of 2 --