Armando Venegas V. , 453 F. App'x 731 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 13 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the Matter of: ARMANDO No. 10-16297
RODRIGUEZ VENEGAS,
State Bar No. 100422, D.C. No. 5:10-mc-80088-JW
ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ VENEGAS, MEMORANDUM *
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
James Ware, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
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
*
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).
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 (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.
2 10-16297