Whether the 9th Circuit's denial of a motion for en banc review without explanation violated the petitioner's due process rights

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. 9th Cir. filed on 12-30-22 denying a motion f6r en banc without ~—— an expalanation which denied Kulick's right to due process which in turn negates 9th Cir. filed on 8-19-22, since it had jurisdiction because the order challenged in the appeal was final or appealable & Kulick'ssUSDC, Case # Complaint filed on 7-6-21,& its proof of service was judicially executed, thus that Complaint in its entirety has merit & be granted by U.S. Supreme ; . Remand to/ ; Cl Court without any further/USDC court hearing(s). 2. Based upon above item #1, A contract like BofA was unconstitutional, since it denys Kulick ability for redress or access to any banking transactions-being a universal banking contract & it's impossible for an attorney at law to advise Kulick not to sign such a contract:.-Kulick signed that cont¥act without an attorney at law-reviewn of that contract-doing under duress for that "access" P . 3. Based upon above item #s 1./2., it's unconstitutional that Kulick's Pro Per status be on the same level of an attorney at law in ability ,which constitutes a discrimination by any court against Kulick's “ability" to comply with any federal rules as it related to procedures whether civil or otherwise & any so-called failures whether to effectuate service &/or lack of prosecution could not be applicable under those prevailing/factual circumstances? Any dismissal + not proper in the/ 4. Bases upon above item #s 1./2./3., it was a violation of Kulick's rights under American With Disabilities Act of 1990 by Defendant(s) since they knew Kulick was a disabled, physically person for many_ years as it applies to the ADA of 1990 mmitevtcansacting bankingsat the BofA business facilities. a yell documentedsfact? , (i)