Case Name: Amos WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cecil DAVIS, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-19
Citations: 162 F. App'x 641
Docket Number: No. 05-2724
Parties: Amos WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cecil DAVIS, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, and Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 162
Pages: 641–642

Head Matter:
Amos WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cecil DAVIS, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-2724.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 13, 2005.
Decided Jan. 19, 2006.
Amos Wilson, Indiana State Prison, Michigan City, IN, pro se.
Steve Carter, Office of The Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, and Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
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 Wilson v. Davis, No. 03-1431 (7th Cir. Mar. 2, 2004) (unpublished order).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 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, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (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 argu ment is unavailing. The district court's findings are not clearly erroneous. No more need be said.
Affirmed