review under the Constitution. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 557, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987) (citation omitted). Since states are not required to provide such review, federal courts have held that challenges to a state’s post-conviction procedures are not cognizable as independent claims in habeas corpus proceedings, “unless state collateral review violates some independent constitutional right, such as the Equal Protection Clause.” Montgomery v. Meloy, 90 F.3d 1200, 1206 (7th Cir.1996). This is because such claims “address collateral matters and not the underlying state conviction giving rise to the prisoner’s incarceration.” Kirby v. Dutton, 794 F.2d 245, 247, 248 (6th Cir.1986). See also Body v. Watkins, 51 Fed.Appx. 807, 810, 2002 WL 31323856 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held
holding claims not raised in  2254 application are forfeited holding that insufficiency of evidence not cognizable in postconviction claim holding that claims based on the fifth amendments due process and equal protection clauses do not give rise to jurisdiction under the tucker act holding that state postconviction delays do not give rise to independent due process claims that are cognizable under  2254 holding that alleged violations of a state statute did not give rise to federal constitutional claims