by the state to supply a lawyer or transcripts.” See Petitioner’s Objections at 8. Petitioner then argues that although post-conviction relief is not constitutionally required, if it is provided, it must meet the minimum standards of due process and equal protection. Id. This court agrees with the Magistrate Judge. “Claims attacking a state court’s application of post-conviction procedures do not state a basis for a federal claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Gottis v. Snyder, 46 F.Supp.2d 344, 384 (D.Del.1999); see also Steele v. Young, 11 F.3d 1518, 1524 (10th Cir.1993) (finding that claim challenging state post-conviction proceedings “would fail to state a federal constitutional claim cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding”); Duff-Smith v. Collins, 973 F.2d 1175, 1182 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Assuming instead that petitioner is not
holding no right to counsel for capital defendants in state habeas proceedings holding that errors in state law cannot support federal habeas relief holding that infirmities in state habeas proceedings do not constitute grounds for federal habeas relief holding that federal habeas relief is not available to correct errors of state law holding that gardenvariety errors of state law do not warrant federal habeas relief