Charles E. McManama v. State of Oregon

985 F.2d 573 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Charles E. MCMANAMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF OREGON, Defendant-Appellee. No. 92-35283. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 27, 1993. * Decided Jan. 29, 1993. Before REINHARDT, CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Charles E. McManama appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his civil rights complaint seeking to preserve his sixth and eighth amendment rights. The district construed McManama's complaint as a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. 3 McManama contends that the district court erred in determining that his action was barred by the eleventh amendment. This contention lacks merit. 4 The existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo. Reebok Int'l, Ltd. v. Marnatech Enterprises,…