Whether a local court rule can constitutionally prohibit successive habeas petitions and deny remedy for alleged constitutional violations

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . I. The Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause under the 14th Amendment "incorporates" rights from Romero's first 8 ‘Amendment rights, while Section 5 of "the 14th Amendment "abrogates" Romero's 11th Amendment right. Romero asserted his . Sovereign Immunity rights under the first 11 Amendments in a post-arrest interview, but that claim of immunity was ignored throughout his case. Are Romero's 9th and 10th Amendment rights; his 5th Amendment Due Process Clause; and his Article 4 Section 2 Privileges and Immunities Clause, all violated by the Supreme Court's interpretations about his Sovereign Immunity rights? II. The Constitution states that "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended..." Romero initiated a habeas action asserting several constitutional ~ violations in the D.C. Superior Court and then the D.C. Court of Appeals. However, the petition was denied due to a local rule which prohibits second or successive habeas petitions. Is a local rule allowed to make habeas proceedings unavailable and..does a court. rule have the authority to allow meritorious constitutional violations to have no available remedy? :