
    Cherie PHILLIPS and Stoic Church of Philosophy, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Sanderson BECK, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-15961.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 19, 2011.
    Cherie Phillips, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
    Sanderson Beck, Goleta, CA, pro se.
    Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cherie Phillips appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her action claiming that Sanderson Beck infringed on her intellectual property rights in her texts including Wisdom Bible of God, Stoic Encheiridion, and Stoic Doctrine. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Filipino Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Asian Journal Publ’ns, Inc., 198 F.3d 1143, 1146 n. 2 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Phillips’s copyright claims because she did not raise a triable issue as to whether Beck had access to the expanded edition of her Wisdom Bible of God, or as to whether there was a substantial similarity between the Phillips’s and Beck’s other texts. See Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 481 (9th Cir.2000) (“Absent direct evidence of copying, proof of infringement involves fact-based showings that the defendant had access to the plaintiffs work and that the two works are substantially similar.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Phillips’s trademark claim because she did not establish a triable issue as to whether her title, Wisdom Bible of God, had secondary meaning. See Filipino Yellow Pages, 198 F.3d at 1147, 1151.

We decline to consider Phillips’s contentions regarding claims that were not raised below. See Dodd v. Hood River Cnty., 59 F.3d 852, 863 (9th Cir.1995).

We are not persuaded by Phillips’s remaining contentions, including those of judicial bias.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     