Arika Hayes v. Kenye West , 678 F. App'x 571 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 27 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ARIKA HAYES, AKA Swiss Barbie Bone,              No. 13-55836
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:12-cv-07974-GW-
    MAN
    v.
    KANYE WEST,                                     MEMORANDUM *
    Defendant,
    and
    VIACOM INC., Erroneously Sued as
    Viacom; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted February 14, 2017**
    Before:      GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Arika Hayes appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her
    copyright infringement action. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We
    review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe
    v. Pliler, 
    627 F.3d 338
    , 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Hayes’ action because Hayes failed to
    allege facts sufficient to show she was the owner of a valid copyright. See 
    17 U.S.C. § 411
    (a) (no action for infringement of the copyright shall be instituted
    until “preregistration or registration of the copyright claim shall have been made in
    accordance with this title”); L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc., 
    676 F.3d 841
    , 852 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Copyright registration is a precondition to filing a
    copyright infringement action.”).
    We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s order denying Hayes’
    motions for reconsideration because Hayes failed to file a new or amended notice
    of appeal from that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); TAAG Linhas Aereas
    de Angola v. Transamerica Airlines, Inc., 
    915 F.2d 1351
    , 1354 (9th Cir. 1990)
    (concluding that “an appeal specifically from the ruling on the [Rule 60(b)] motion
    must be taken if the issues raised in that motion are to be considered by the Court
    of Appeals”).
    We reject as without merit Hayes’ contention that the district judge was
    biased.
    2                                    13-55836
    Hayes’ request filed on May 9, 2014, and her motion filed on January 4,
    2017, are denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                  13-55836
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-55836

Citation Numbers: 678 F. App'x 571

Judges: Farris, Fernandez, Goodwin

Filed Date: 2/27/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024