Case Name: In the Matter of: Armando Rodriguez VENEGAS, State Bar No. 100422, Armando Rodriguez Venegas, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-13
Citations: 453 F. App'x 731
Docket Number: No. 10-16297
Parties: In the Matter of: Armando Rodriguez VENEGAS, State Bar No. 100422, Armando Rodriguez Venegas, Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 453
Pages: 731–731

Head Matter:
In the Matter of: Armando Rodriguez VENEGAS, State Bar No. 100422, Armando Rodriguez Venegas, Appellant.
No. 10-16297.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Oct. 13, 2011.
Armando R. Venegas, Venegas Law Office, San Jose, CA, for Armando Rodriguez Venegas.
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Armando Rodriguez Venegas appeals pro se from the district court's order removing him from the roll of attorneys authorized to practice law before the Northern District of California based on his suspension by the California Supreme Court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. In re Corrinet, 645 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing reciprocal discipline on Venegas after reviewing his response to the court's order to show cause, including attached documents from the state disciplinary proceedings that led the California Supreme Court to suspend Venegas. See Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 50-51, 37 S.Ct. 377, 61 L.Ed. 585 (1917) (federal court must review the relevant state court disciplinary record before imposing reciprocal discipline on attorney).
Venegas's remaining contentions, including his argument that the California Supreme Court's disciplinary adjudication should be declared void under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, are unpersuasive. See Mothershed v. Justices of the Supreme Court, 410 F.3d 602, 607-08 (9th Cir.2005) (district court lacked jurisdiction to review merits of state disciplinary proceedings against attorney).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.