Whether the D.C. Court of Appeals violated the petitioner's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process by failing to consider all of the petitioner's allegations in the opposition to the motion to dismiss

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner is a pro se litigant. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the District of Columbia Superior Court’s grant of Howard’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Super. Ct. Rule Civ. P. 12(6)(6). The Court ruled my complaint is issue precluded by direct estoppel. The Court did not consider pleadings in my opposition to Howard’s motion to dismiss in rendering its decision. The Questions Presented are as follows: ; 1. Was the D.C. Court of Appeals obligated to consider all of my allegations pled in my Opposition to Howard’s Motion to Dismiss—and construe them less strictly in deciding if my Complaint and proffered sixth cause of action are issue precluded, and if so, was its failure to do so a violation of my Fifth and , Fourteenth Amendment rights to Due Process of Law (i.e. my right to procedural due process)? 2. Was the D.C. Court of Appeal’s failure to include my Opposition pleading to Howard's Motion to Dismiss in its deliberations (i.e. in deciding if my complaint was issue precluded) a failure to act pursuant to its own deliberation policies for pro se litigants and thus a deprivation of my Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to Due Process of law (i.e. my right to procedural due process)? 3. Was the D.C. Court of Appeal’s failure to include all of my pleadings in its deliberations pursuant to federal court decisions on 12(b)(6) dismissals—per its own policy to hold these decisions as precedent—a violation of my Fifth and Fourteenth . Amendment Rights to Due Process of law (i.e. my right to procedural due process)? ii