Did the D.C. Circuit Court violate constitutional rights and improperly dismiss a pro se litigant's civil rights complaint against a judge under 42 U.S.C. 1983

PRESENTED 1. Did the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit violate exiting laws guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, failed to redress the lower court's unjust error, and breached its duty to protect and preserve the substantive right of pro se litigant "Petitioner Onyinye Jideani," when affirming the lower court's bias and unconstitutional decision dismissing Petitioner Onyinye Jideani's December 08, 2023 Appeal "for substantially justified legal complaint for deprivation of civil rights 42 U.S.C. 1983," against the Respondent “associate Judge Robert R. Rigsby of the District of Columbia Superior Court civil action divison," on an August 05, 2024 Order; -The Respondent "Judge Robert R. Rigsby," deprived me of my civil rights "(42 U.S.C. 1983)" when he breached his judicial obligations and/or acted outside the scope of his judicial duties when litigating my legal complaints against the accused in various civil action law suit that he presided over in D.C. Superior court, "violating constitutional laws and federal-protected citizens rights guaranteed by the constitution;" And therefore pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 judge Rigsby is liable to me "(as the injured victim)" in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. -And the lower court's bias, immoral, unethical, and unconstitutional argument that judicial officers and/or judges are immune from acts taken under their judicial capacity in supporting the Respondent ’s unlawful actions on my behalf, presents an issue of law and/or challenges 42 U.S.C. 1983: Civil action for deprivation of rights. Page2 of 30 Page 1 of 1,