#### Stephen Charles FORDE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Dick CLARK, Warden; et al., Respondents—Appellees.

No. 02-55420.

D.C. No. CV-00-00819-AHS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2004.*

Decided April 15, 2004.

Stephen Charles Forde, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

*94April Anita Christine, USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Scott C. Taylor, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Stephen Charles Forde appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition for lack of jurisdiction. This court granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether Forde was in custody for purposes of § 2254 jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), and we affirm.

Forde contends that the district court erred in ruling that he was not in custody under § 2254 by ignoring the controlling case of *Lackawanna County Disk Att’y v. Coss,*532 U.S. 394, 121 S.Ct. 1567, 149 L.Ed.2d 608 (2001). We review de novo denials of § 2254 petitions. *See Park v. California,*202 F.3d 1146, 1149 (9th Cir.2000). We conclude that the analysis in *Lackawanna*does not change Forde’s custody status in regard to § 2254. *See Lackawanna,*532 U.S. at 401-02; *see also Allen v. Oregon,*153 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that petitioner in federal custody could not challenge in a § 2254 petition his expired state convictions that contributed to basis of federal incarceration).

Forde also contends that because he filed his § 2254 petition within the proper time limit after his state conviction became final, *Carafas v. LaVallee,*391 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968), mandates that he be considered to be in custody. We disagree. The petitioner in *Carafas*filed his federal habeas petition before his state conviction expired, whereas Forde did not file his petition until after his state conviction expired. *See Carafas,*391 U.S. at 238. Therefore, *Carafas*is inapposite. *See id.*

Finally, Forde contends that he has a fundamental right to habeas jurisdiction, and that he has a due process right and an equal protection right to be heard in habeas under § 2254. Because these contentions are outside the scope of the certificate of appealability, this court may not reach them. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); *Hiivala v. Wood,*195 F.3d 1098, 1102-03 (9th Cir.1999). Even if this court were to reach these contentions, they lack merit. *See U.S. v. Hancock,*231 F.3d 557, 565 (9th Cir.2000) (noting that strict scrutiny is only used for suspect classes or burdens on fundamental rights); *Mayner v. Callahan,*873 F.2d 1300, 1302 (9th Cir.1989) (stating that prisoners are not a suspect class); *Cruz-Sanchez v. Robinson, 249*F.2d 771, 774-75 (9th Cir.1957) (discussing that habeas corpus is a judicial procedural vehicle to address violation of rights, rather than a right in itself).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.