ARIKA HAYES V. KENYE WEST, No. 13-55836 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 27 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARIKA HAYES, AKA Swiss Barbie Bone, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 13-55836 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-07974-GWMAN v. MEMORANDUM * KANYE WEST, 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.