In Re: Philip E. Kay V. , 481 F. App'x 407 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: PHILIP EDWARD KAY, attorney No. 11-15253
disciplinary matter,
D.C. No. 3:10-mc-80263-VRW
Philip Edward Kay -
Appellant.
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vaughn R. Walker, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012 **
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Philip Edward Kay, an attorney, 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 after Kay was suspended from the practice of law in
California. 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), and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in removing Kay from the roll
of attorneys authorized to practice law before the Northern District of California
after reviewing Kay’s response to the court’s order to show cause, which included
documents from the state disciplinary proceedings that led the California Supreme
Court to suspend Kay. See Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 50-51 (1917) (federal
court must review the relevant state court disciplinary record before imposing
reciprocal discipline on attorney).
Kay’s contention that the district court violated his due process rights when
it did not conduct an evidentiary hearing is unpersuasive because the district court
proceedings met due process requirements. See In re Kramer, 193 F.3d 1131,
1133 (9th Cir. 1999) (due process provided when district court issues an order to
show cause to the respondent attorney and reviews the state record).
Kay’s motions for judicial notice and for permission to file a supplemental
brief are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-15253