Steve K. Wilson Briggs v. James Cameron;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVE K. WILSON BRIGGS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JAMES CAMERON; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-17229
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-01596-VC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges
Steve K. Wilson Briggs appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging copyright infringement and other related claims. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s
dismissal for failure to state a claim. Wilson v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th
* 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
OCT 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-17229
Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Briggs’s direct, vicarious, and
contributory copyright infringement claims because Briggs failed to allege facts
sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679
(2009) (a plaintiff fails to show he is entitled to relief if the complaint’s factual
allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of [the
alleged] misconduct”); see also Skidmore ex rel. Randy Craig Wolfe Tr. v. Led
Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (setting forth elements of direct
copyright infringement); A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004,
1019-22 (9th Cir. 2001) (vicarious copyright infringement and contributory
copyright infringement claims require direct copyright infringement).
The district court properly dismissed Briggs’s remaining claims because
they lacked any arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989) (a “frivolous” claim lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact; the “term ‘frivolous’ . . . embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion,
but also the fanciful factual allegation”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Briggs’s motion to
disqualify the district judge because Briggs failed to establish extrajudicial bias or
prejudice. See United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891-92 (9th Cir. 2012)
(setting forth standard of review and circumstances requiring disqualification).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-17229
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
No further filings will be entertained in this closed case.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --