David E. Kelly v. Joseph M. Arpaio;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID E. KELLY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15046
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02572-GMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
David E. Kelly appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his copyright infringement action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo. Worth v. Selchow & Righter Co., 827 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir.
1987). We affirm.
* 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).
FILED
SEP 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-15046
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Kelly’s copyright
infringement claims arising on or before December 2012, because the claims were
time-barred. See 17 U.S.C. § 507(b) (three-year statute of limitations for copyright
infringement claims); Polar Bear Prods., Inc. v. Timex Corp., 384 F.3d 700, 706-
07 (9th Cir. 2004) (statute of limitations for copyright infringement claims begins
to run when the copyright owner discovers, or reasonably could have discovered,
the infringement).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Kelly’s copyright
infringement claims arising after December 2012 because Kelly failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants violated any of the
exclusive rights conferred by the Copyright Act. See Adobe Sys. Inc. v.
Christenson, 809 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2015) (copyright infringement requires
violation by infringer of at least one of the exclusive rights conferred by the
Copyright Act).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Kelly’s challenge to the district court’s
order granting defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs because Kelly did
not file a notice of appeal after entry of the district court’s order awarding
attorney’s fees and costs. See Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug
Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of appeal is a non-
waivable jurisdictional requirement.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-15046
We reject as unsupported by the record Kelly’s contentions regarding
judicial misconduct and bias.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --