When the District Court sua sponte dismissed a habeas corpus petition, was the petitioner's freedom of speech, right to petition the government, due process, and equal protection violated?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED " When the-District Court sua sponte "closed the ‘Courthouse doors' " upon "Garden-Variety" reasons, dismissing writ of Habeas corpus for 1) statute of limitations, 2) as procedurally time-barred, 3) lacking _ jurisdiction, 4) not "in-custody". 5) because the petition makes no : substantial showing of a denial of a Constitutional Right, and 6) regardless of whether the challenged conviction enhanced a _ subsequant sentence, but in light of petitioner's pro se status, the court . grants petitioner 30 days' leave to file a ‘Declaration’ alleging ‘ facts showing that the Court has jurisdiction (when the court already ' ' petitioner alleges that there is "newly ; : discovered’ evidence," and refers to a) other. habeas corpus actions he has brought in this court that were dismissed-without prejudice...) . and that the petition is timely to consider, a Certificate of Appealability will not issue... . : Was petitioner's freedom of speech abridged, and to petition the ; government for a redress of grievances prohibiting the free exercise thereof, -as well as Due Process and Equal Protection of the laws : violated, 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution? When ‘the habeas corpus plays a vital role in protecting Constitutional Rights, how can the lower courts ignore a “substantial showing" in “Any attached exhibits..." as per Rule 4 governing § 2254 of habeas — corpus cases? . : ; Is the petitioner "in-custody" pursuant to the statutory phrase “in-custody" in 28 U.S.C. § 22412 © ; Whether there was jurisdiction to issue a Certificate of Appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and to adjudicate petitioner's appeal? Whether circumstances" existed where ; -resort to State Court remedies has failed to: afford a full and fair . adjudication of the Federal contentions raised, either because the : . i ¢ . ; State affords no remedy, or because in the particular unavailable or seriously inadequate case the remedy afforded by State law proves in practice unavailable or seriously inadequate, should the Federal Court's have entertained petition for habeas corpus without leaving petitioner remediless? . (1) ; . a