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.