2014 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

3-24-2014 

# Ab du s S h ahid v

. B or ou gh of D a rb y
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 13-4037

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2014 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" Abdus S h ahid v

. Bor ou gh of D a r

b y " (2014). 2014 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 328. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014/328NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 13

- 4037

___________ ABDUS SHAHID , Appellant

v. BOROUGH OF DARBY

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2

- 11

- cv - 02772 ) District Judge: Honorable J. William Ditter

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 13, 2014 Before: SMITH, GARTH and ROTH , Ci rcuit Judges (Opinion filed : March 24 , 2014 )

___________

OPINION

___________ PER CURIAM Abdus Shahid, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s order entering judgment in favor of the Borough of Darby (the “Borough”). For the reasons set for th below, we will affirm.2 I. In 2006, Shahid, a United States citizen and native of Bangladesh, bought a non residential warehouse located in the Borough. The warehouse had ten separate rental units and was loc ated across the street from a Borough offic e. After Shahid purchased the warehouse, three different units were occupied at various times and by different tenants. The Borough’s Ordinanc e No. 118.5 states that “[n]o building may be occupied for nonresidential use by a person unless the owner or te nant thereof shall first have applied for and received a nonresidential occupancy permit appli cation.” (Dkt. No. 38, p. 3.) Once the application is received, the Borough may issue a nonresidential occupancy (“NRO”) certificate. Shahid allowed several pe ople to conduct business in the warehouse without NRO certificates , in violation of the ordinance. In 2008, the Borough (through Joseph Nerelli, its Chief Code Enforcement Officer) notified Shahid of safety conce rns it had about the warehouse, including disa ssembled vehicles parked on the property, a large silver trailer on the lot that needed to be removed, and a company storing plastic food containers at the site. There were no NRO certificates on file authorizing those activities. From 2008 to 2011, t he Borough issued the following citations against Shahid in connection with his ownership of the warehouse: five for violating the Borough’s sanitation ordinance ; thirteen for violating Ordinance No. 118.5 due to a tenant at the warehouse who did not ha ve an NRO certificate; one for failing to remove snow; and four for failing to remove trash. Shahid was convicted of violating the Borough’s ordinances, as set forth in the citations.3 Shahid then filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1 983, claiming that the Borough discriminated against him on the basis of his race and national origin, thereby violating his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y.C. , 436 U.S. 658, 694

- 95 (1978). He alleged that the Borough’s actions were part of a scheme to limit business in the Borou gh to African

- Americans, and designed to specifically exclude him because he was from a foreign country. After conducting a bench trial on Shahid’s discrimination claims, the Distr ict Court entered judgment in favor of the Borough. Shahid appeals.
II. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Shahid a rgues that the District Court impermissibly based its adverse credibility finding on hearsay evidence and that its order was base d on incorrect findings of fact. In response, the Borough argues that the District Court properly admitted the evidence and asks that we affirm the District Court’s entry of judgment in its favor because Shahid has not met his burden of proving t hat the District Court’s factual determinations were clearly erroneous. Whether testimony is hearsay is a question of law over which we exercise plenary review. United States v. Vosburgh , 602 F.3d 512, 538 (3d Cir. 2010). To the extent the District Co urt’s ruling was based on a permissible interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence , we review only for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Saada , 212 F.3d 210, 220 (3d Cir. 2000).4 The District Court stated in its findings of fact that “Shahid ’s case is entirely dependent on his credibilit y and I find him not credible.” (Dkt. No. 38, p. 2.) That finding was based on the District Court’s observations of him during trial, his testimony, and its “conclusion that the invoice he produced . . . in t his case and the invoices he produced” in a n earlier case were “fraudulent.” ( Id. ) The court in Shahid’s earlie r discrimination case concluded that he fabricated three invoices. The Borough offere d those invoices, along with a nearly identical one that Shahid prepared in this case, as evidence of his fraud, not to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). We perceive no error in the District Court’s considering the invoices , along with Shahid’s demeanor and testimony, in re aching its conclusion that he was not credible

. We review the District Court’s findings of fact for clear error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Newark Branch, NAACP v. City of Bayonne, N.J. , 134 F.3d 113, 120 (3d Cir. 1998). “To the extent that the District Court’s conclusions rested on credibility determinations, our review is particularly deferential.” Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am. , 609 F.3d 143, 156

- 57 (3d Cir. 2010). Because credibility determinations are “quintessentially the province of the trial court,” we reject them only in “rare circumstances.” Dardovitch v. Haltzman , 190 F.3d 125, 140 (3d Cir. 1999). Such rare circumstances are not present in this case. T he District Court concluded that there was “no credible evidence” that the Borough discriminated against Shahid and that his “allegations of discrimination are not supported by the evidence.” (Dkt. No. 38, p. 6.) Shahid argues that the District Court’s findings of facts are “not true,” but offers5 nothing substantive from the record below to support his assertions that the District Court’s factual findings and credibility determinations were clearly erroneous. We must therefore defer to the District Court and will not disturb its findings on appeal.
III. For the foregoing rea sons, the judgment of the District Court entered September 19, 2013, will be affirmed.