Frank E. Voth v. Multnomah County Courts

967 F.2d 596 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Frank E. VOTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY COURTS, Defendant-Appellee. No. 91-36042. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 26, 1992. * Decided June 1, 1992. Before FARRIS, DAVID R. THOMPSON and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Frank E. Voth, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his request for a preliminary injunction and the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 action. 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. 3 Voth's complaint alleged that during his criminal trial, the Multnomah County Courts deprived him of due process and equal protection of the laws. Voth sought damages and injunctive relief. 4 When a state prisoner challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks a determination that he is entitled to immediate release from imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas…