The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN ANTONIO CRUZ, : Civil No. 1:21-CV-00655
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. :
:
W.T. AUKER and :
L. MARZZACCO, :
:
Defendants. : Judge Jennifer P. Wilson
MEMORANDUM
This is a prisoner civil rights case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in
which Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his right to practice his Jewish
faith by denying him religious meals during Passover. The court conducted a
bench trial on Plaintiff’s claims. As discussed below, the court finds Defendant
Wayne Auker liable for violation of Plaintiff’s rights, but finds Defendant
Marzzacco not liable. Defendant Auker will be ordered to pay Plaintiff nominal
damages of $1 and punitive damages of $10,000.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff, John Antonio Cruz, filed his complaint on March 13, 2021, and the
court received and docketed it on April 9, 2021. (Doc. No. 1.) The case was
initially assigned to United States District Judge Christopher C. Conner. After
Judge Conner granted Cruz’s motion for leave to amend the complaint in part,
1
(Doc. No. 44), his amended complaint (Doc. No. 40) became the operative
complaint, and the case proceeded on his First Amendment free exercise, First
Amendment retaliation, and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims.
Defendants filed an answer on February 23, 2023. (Doc. No. 52.)
On March 1, 2024, Judge Conner denied Cruz’s motion to supplement his
complaint to include a claim for permanent injunctive relief requiring the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”) to provide appropriate religious
meals for Jewish inmates observing Passover and other religious ceremonies in the
future. (Doc. No. 115.) Following the close of discovery, Judge Conner issued an
opinion on July 30, 2024, addressing the parties’ cross motions for summary
judgment. (Doc. Nos. 129–30.) Judge Conner denied Cruz’s motion for summary
judgment, and granted in part and denied in part the Defendants’ motion, finding
that there were genuine issues of material fact as to (a) whether Defendants
violated Cruz’s rights to free exercise and equal protection; (b) whether Defendants
were entitled to qualified immunity; and (c) whether Cruz exhausted administrative
remedies with respect to his claims against Defendant Marzzacco. (Id.) Judge
Conner granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to Cruz’s
retaliation claim because Cruz failed to exhaust administrative remedies with
respect to that claim. (Id.) Accordingly, the case proceeded as to Cruz’s free
exercise and equal protection claims against Defendants Auker and Marzzacco.
2
Judge Conner referred the case to mediation on August 20, 2024, which
proved unsuccessful in resolving the case. (Doc. Nos. 132, 135.) The case was
reassigned to the undersigned on October 28, 2024, in advance of Judge Conner’s
retirement.1 On January 14, 2025, the court scheduled the case for a bifurcated
bench trial and evidentiary hearing on the issue of exhaustion of administrative
remedies on July 14, 2025. (Doc. No. 143.) The court continued the trial by order
on June 23, 2025, due to the court’s obligation to preside over a criminal trial on
the same date. (Doc. No. 156.) During a subsequent telephonic conference to
discuss the trial schedule, counsel for defendants waived the affirmative defense of
failure to exhaust administrative remedies on the remaining claims. (Doc. No.
161.) The court issued an order scheduling the case for a bench trial on March 16,
2026. (Doc. No. 162.) The bench trial occurred as scheduled on March 16, 2026.
(Doc. No. 181.)
BENCH TRIAL
During the bench trial, the court heard testimony from five witnesses: Cruz;
the two Defendants; Andrew Hebel, a correctional officer in the prison; and
Kenneth White, another inmate who was in a cell near Cruz’s at the time of the
events in question.
1 Judge Conner retired from the court in January 2025.
3
The first witness to testify was Hebel. He testified that he worked the 2:00
p.m. to 10:00 p.m. shift in the prison during the relevant period. (Trial Transcript
at 20:13.) Hebel testified that during Passover, Cruz asked him where his
“Passover bag was.” (Id. at 21:17–18.) Hebel told Cruz that he would contact the
dietary department about the bag. (Id. at 21:20–21.) Hebel testified that he
subsequently called the dietary department and asked if Cruz was on the approved
list to receive Passover meals. (Id. at 21:22–22:1.) Hebel was unsure if the dietary
department took any actions to fix the issue after he contacted them. (Id. at 24:18–
25:5.)
Hebel testified that the night after Cruz first approached him about his
missing Passover bag, he spoke with him again at dinner time and told him that he
had not received a Passover meal. (Id. at 25:8–11.) Hebel again called the dietary
department to attempt to resolve the issue, but was unsure if it was resolved after
the call. (Id. at 25:21–26:1.)
On cross-examination, Hebel testified that he could not say for sure whether
he had spoken with Auker or Marzzacco when he called the dietary department.
(Id. at 32:3–14.) Hebel also testified that it was unlikely that he would have
spoken with Auker specifically because he and Auker worked on different shifts at
the relevant time. (Id. at 32:15–23.)
4
The court next heard testimony from White. White testified that he is a
fellow member of the Jewish community who also observed Passover in 2020. (Id.
at 38:8–9.) White testified that both he and his cellmate, Granville Tucker, who is
also Jewish, received Passover meals. (Id. at 38:10–20.) When White and Tucker
observed that Cruz had not received Passover meals, they spoke to prison officials
to say that Cruz should receive the meals. (Id. at 39:8–13.) White testified that he
believed he spoke with Defendant Auker about the situation, but could not identify
Auker in the courtroom when asked to do so. (Id. at 39:14–21.) White also
testified that he recalled seeing Cruz speaking with Auker and Sergeant Irvin about
his missing Passover meals. (Id. at 39:14–24.) According to White, a woman he
knew as “Mrs. M.” delivered the Passover meals in the mornings during Passover.
(Id. at 42:14–22.) White could not identify Marzzacco or any other person in the
courtroom as “Mrs. M.” (Id. at 43:6–7.) White testified that he remembered an
officer asking Mrs. M. if Cruz was supposed to get a Passover meal as well. (Id. at
44:1–3.)
On cross-examination, White admitted that although he could remember the
contents of the conversation when he and Tucker advocated for Cruz to also
receive Passover meals, he could not specifically remember the time of day when
the conversation occurred. (Id. at 48:8–12.) White noted that his inability to
remember the exact time of day was “[p]robably because it was six years ago.”
5
(Id.) White also noted that both he and his cellmate gave Cruz portions of their
Passover meals when they saw that he had not received them. (Id. at 48:14–23.)
Cruz called himself as the last witness in his case in chief. He testified that
sometime around April 2, 2020, the chaplain in the prison made a list of all the
inmates who intended to sign up for Passover. (Id. at 54:9–21.) Cruz said that he
was the seventh inmate to add his name to the list. (Id. at 54:21.)
Crus testified that the day before that, on April 1, 2020, he noticed that his
“bags were being shorted.” (Id. at 56:18–19.) Specifically, Cruz testified that he
was receiving less than the allotted amount of peanut butter and cottage cheese in
his regular Kosher meals. (Id. at 56:19–57:2.) Cruz testified that he submitted a
grievance complaining about the portions, but that the grievance was immediately
sent back as improper because it complained about the portions other Jewish
inmates were receiving, and not just his own portions. (Id. at 62:2–6.) Cruz
testified that he then submitted a second grievance, Grievance Number 860818,
which was admitted into the record as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1. Grievance Number
860818 was filed on April 8, 2020. (Ex. P1.) Shortly after Cruz submitted the
grievance, he observed that Defendant Auker delivered Passover meals to his
housing unit but did not deliver one to him. (Trial Transcript at 65:13–19.)
Cruz immediately told correctional officer Burgain, Unit Manager Hamor,
and Sergeant Irvin that he had not received his required Passover meal. (Id. at
6
66:4–16.) When the correctional officers left the unit on a shift change, he then
told the same thing to correctional officer Hebel. (Id. at 67:4–7.) Hebel told Cruz
that he spoke with the prison’s chaplain and verified that Cruz was supposed to
receive Passover meals, and stated that he would call the dietary department on his
behalf. (Id. 70:24–71:1.)
Cruz testified that he was again denied a Passover meal on April 9, 2020,
and that Hebel asked Marzzacco whether Cruz was supposed to get the meal. (Id.
at 78:24–79:4.) According to Cruz, Marzzacco responded that Cruz’s name was
not on the list for Passover meals. (Id. 79:5–10.) Cruz again told Hebel that he
was not receiving his Passover meals, and Hebel told him to wait and see what
happened at dinner. (Id. at 79:23–80:4.) Cruz testified that when he again did not
receive his Passover meal at dinner, Hebel called the dietary department about the
issue in front of him. (Id. at 80:5–11.) He testified that he continued to not receive
his Passover meals until April 14, 2020. (Id. at 80:17–20.) Cruz then moved into
evidence Defendants’ Exhibit 4, a copy of the initial review response to his
grievance complaining about the lack of Passover meals, in which Defendant
Auker stated that the dietary department received word from Chaplain Hansard on
April 13, 2020, that Cruz was not receiving his Passover meals. (Id. at 82:20–
83:15; Ex. D4.)
7
Cruz testified that prior to Chaplain Hansard informing the dietary
department about the missing Passover meals, he informed Defendant Auker that
he was not receiving his Passover meals via an inmate request to staff form on
April 10, 2020. (Trial Transcript at 83:22–84:14.) Cruz moved a copy of that
request into evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4. (Id. at 84:1–14; Ex. P4.)
According to Cruz, he was unable to sleep and had no energy due to not
eating during Passover. (Id. at 89:13–14.) Cruz also experienced “growing pain
type pains in [his] knees.” (Id. at 89:15.) To help Cruz deal with his hunger, White
and Tucker shared some of their Passover meals with him. (Id. 89:20–90:10.)
Cruz testified that at lunchtime on April 14, 2020, he received a Passover meal that
was delivered by “Miss M,” who noted that Cruz was now on the list to receive
Passover meals. (Id. at 90:17–21.) He continued to receive meals that did not
violate his Jewish faith through April 16, 2020. (Id. at 91:3–8.)
On cross-examination, Cruz confirmed that Defendant Auker never
personally came to his cell during the relevant period. (Id. at 93:24–94:1.) Cruz
also acknowledged that he did not have any personal knowledge that Hebel had
spoken with Auker when he had called the dietary department to ask about Cruz
not receiving Passover meals. (Id. at 94:2–9.) Similarly, Cruz did not have any
personal knowledge about which officials answered the phone in the dietary
8
department on any other occasions when someone called the department to ask
about Cruz’s meals. (Id. at 94:10–20; 95:1–8; 95:12–17; 96:23–97:10.)
At the conclusion of Cruz’s case in chief, Defendants called Defendant
Auker to the stand. (Id. at 111.) Auker testified that he was the food service
manager at SCI-Benner Township at all relevant times and that he continues to
hold that position now. (Id. at 111:15–21.) Auker testified that in that role he
supervises 22 instructors, 4 supervisors, and approximately 300 inmates in food
service roles. (Id. at 111:22–112:1.)
Auker testified that in 2020, he received a list of inmates who were signed
up to receive Passover meals from Chaplain McCoy. (Id. at 112:2–25.)2 The list
he received from McCoy contained Cruz’s name and other inmates’ names. (Id. at
113:11–17; Ex. P2.) After receiving the list from McCoy, he manually typed the
inmates’ names into a spreadsheet and did not copy and paste the information. (Id.
at 116:11–25.) Auker testified that he put the information in manually so that he
could sort it by the inmates’ housing blocks. (Id. at 116:24–117:4.)
The spreadsheet Auker prepared—which had been previously admitted into
the record as Exhibit D2—did not include Cruz’s name. (Id. at 117:14–118:5; Ex.
D2 at DOC000125.) Auker explained that Cruz’s absence from the list “was
2 The list was entered into the record as Exhibit D1.
9
probably just an oversight of me not putting [his name] on there.” (Id. at 118:10–
13.) Auker testified that he did not deliberately leave Cruz’s name off the list. (Id.
at 118:14–16.)
Auker testified that he first learned of Cruz’s absence from the list when he
was contacted by Chaplain Hansard on a date he could not recall. (Id. at 120:8–
121:1.) According to Auker, he corrected the error immediately and ensured that
Cruz would have a Passover meal at the next mealtime. (Id. at 121:2–6.) Auker
prepared an updated list that included Cruz’s name. (Id. at 184:22–185:8; Ex. D3.)
With respect to Cruz’s attempts to contact the dietary department, Auker
testified that he did not receive any of the phone calls regarding Cruz’s absence
from the Passover meals list. (Id. at 122:22–123:3.) Auker also testified that he
did not recall receiving Cruz’s request to staff about the missing Passover meals.
(Id. at 123:13–17.) Auker testified that the earliest he would have possibly
received Cruz’s request to staff was April 13, 2020, because Cruz submitted it on
April 10, a Friday, and Auker was not in the office until April 13, a Monday. (Id.
at 125:20–126:3.) Auker further testified that he did not always check his mail on
Mondays, and that he therefore may not have seen the document until April 14, a
Tuesday. (Id. at 126:9–127:6.)
With respect to Cruz’s grievance about half-portion meals that was filed
before Passover, Auker testified that he did not know about the grievance “because
10
it never made it to, it never made it to me because it was denied.” (Id. at 127:17–
19.) After his counsel refreshed his recollection with Exhibit P1, however, Auker
admitted that he had responded to Cruz’s grievance on April 30, 2022. (Id. at
128:1–17.) Auker testified that he did not deny Cruz his Passover meals because
he had filed a grievance against him. (Id.)
Following brief cross-examination and re-direct examination, Auker
admitted, on questioning from the court, that Cruz was the only person omitted
from his spreadsheet after he received the initial list from the chaplain. (Id. at
132:22–133:5.) Auker then agreed with the court that based on his response date
of April 30, 2020, to Cruz’s grievance about insufficient meal portions, he would
have received the grievance no later than April 8, 2020, the date on which Cruz
began to not receive Passover meals. (Id. at 134:2–20.) Auker further admitted
that he had no personal knowledge of whether he received Cruz’s April 10 request
to staff on April 13, as he testified on direct examination, but rather that he was
simply assuming that was the case based on mail practices in the prison. (Id. at
135:2–11.)
With respect to the phone calls to the food service department, Auker
testified that if phone calls came in between Monday and Friday in 2020, he would
have been the one to answer those calls. (Id. at 135:21–23.) When asked if he
answered the calls that were placed to the food services department by Hebel,
11
however, Auker testified that he was “not 100 percent sure” if he would have
answered those calls because “it all depends on what extension he called.” (Id. at
136:8–16.) Auker testified that there were multiple extensions on the food services
department, and that if Hebel had called an extension other than the one available
to him, it “would have went to one of [his] supervisors.” (Id. at 136:12–24.)
Auker then testified, however, that if the information regarding Mr. Cruz’s meals
had been reported to one of his supervisors, the information would have been
reported to him so that the issue could be “resolved and fixed immediately.” (Id. at
136:25–137:7.) Given Auker’s earlier testimony that he first heard about Cruz’s
missing Passover meals on April 14, 2020, he testified that Hebel must not have
called the dietary department as he had testified. (Id. at 137:8–15.)
On follow-up questioning by Defendants’ counsel, Auker testified that
Hebel could have called the dietary department and he simply was not aware of it.
(Id. at 137:22–138:8.) The court then asked whether this was inconsistent with his
earlier testimony that calls to the department that he did not answer would go to his
supervisors, and he responded that it was not inconsistent because the “10 to 12
instructors” in the department also could have answered the call. (Id. at 138:16–
24.) Auker reiterated, however, that if someone in the dietary department received
the message from Hebel, it should have been relayed to him. (Id. at 138:25–
139:2.)
12
The Defendants’ final witness was Defendant Marzzacco. (Id. at 139.)
Marzzacco testified that she is a correctional food service instructor at SCI-Benner
Township and held that position at all times relevant to this case. (Id. at 140:3–
14.) In April 2020, she was working the 5:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. shift. (Id. at
140:15–17.)
Marzzacco testified that in April 2020, she had a list of 16 inmates to deliver
Passover meals to, and that Cruz was not on the list. (Id. at 141:4–7.) Marzzacco
testified that she did not intentionally deny Cruz a Passover meal. (Id. at 143:18–
20.) She also did not recall any instance of Hebel or anybody else talking to her
about Cruz not receiving his Passover meals. (Id. at 144:9–24.)
FINDINGS OF FACT
Cruz is a Jewish inmate who was signed up to receive Passover meals in
April 2020. (Trial Transcript 113:11–17; Ex. P2.) The list of inmates receiving
Passover meals was initially prepared by Chaplain McCoy, and then transferred to
a spreadsheet by Defendant Auker. (Trial Transcript at 116:11–25.) The
Chaplain’s list included Cruze but Defendant Auker’s spreadsheet did not. (Id. at
117:14–118:5; Ex. D2 at DOC000125.) This led to Cruz being denied Passover
meals from April 8, 2020, through April 14, 2020. (Trial Transcript at 65–80.)
The court finds that in preparing the spreadsheet of inmates who were
supposed to receive Passover meals, Defendant Auker intentionally omitted Cruz.
13
The court bases this finding primarily on its credibility assessments of Auker,
Cruz, and correctional officer Hebel.
The court finds defendant Auker’s testimony not credible because of several
material inconsistencies in his testimony. First, Auker initially testified that he had
never seen Cruz’s grievance about insufficient meal portions, but after his counsel
showed that he had responded to the grievance on April 30, 2020, Auker admitted
that he had seen the grievance. (Id. 127:17–128:17.) Further questioning from the
court elicited testimony from Auker that not only had he seen the grievance, he had
likely received it on April 8, 2020, the exact date that Cruz began to be denied his
Passover meals. (Id. at 134:2–20.)
Second, on direct examination by his counsel, Auker appeared to be certain
that he had not received Cruz’s request to staff related to his Passover meal until
April 13, 2020, and that he may not have actually read it until April 14, 2020. (Id.
125:20–126:3.) When pressed on this point by the court, however, Auker appeared
far less certain, and testified that he did not have personal knowledge of when he
received the document and was essentially just speculating on when he would have
received it based on typical mail practices in the prison. (Id. at 135:2–11.)
Third, Auker wavered throughout his testimony about phone calls that were
made to the food service department. He initially testified that he did not receive
any of the phone calls regarding Cruz missing his Passover meals, (Id. at 122:22–
14
123:3), but then testified that if phone calls came to the food service department he
would be the one to answer them. (Id. at 135:21–23.) When asked to explain this
testimony with regard to the calls that were made by Hebel, however, Auker
hedged his testimony by stating that it would depend which extension was called
and that if Hebel had called a different extension he would have spoken with one
of Auker’s supervisors rather than him. (Id. at 136:8–24.) After noting that calls
to his supervisors would have been relayed to him, however, he backtracked on the
calls from Hebel and testified that Hebel must have not have actually called the
food service department at all and that Hebel’s testimony to that effect was
incorrect. (Id. 136:25–137:15.) He then backtracked from that statement on
follow-up examination by his counsel by stating that Hebel may have called the
department and he simply was not aware of it. (Id. at 137:22–138:8.) When the
court pointed out this apparent inconsistency, Auker testified that the call could
have been handled by one of the instructors in the food service department and not
relayed to him, (Id. at 138:16–24), despite his earlier testimony that (1) calls that
were not answered directly by him were answered by one of his supervisors and
not the instructors; and (2) that any calls made to the food service department
would have been relayed to him, (see id. at 136.)
In light of all of these inconsistencies in Auker’s testimony, the court finds
his testimony not credible and finds that he was informed that Cruz was not
15
receiving his Passover meals several times between April 8, 2020, and April 14,
2020, including through multiple phone calls by officer Hebel and a request to staff
sent by Cruz.
Auker’s testimony is also undermined by the testimony of Officer Hebel,
which the court finds completely credible based on observation of his demeanor
during the testimony and because there does not appear to be any motive for Hebel
to testify against his coworkers and in favor of Cruz’s case against them. Hebel
testified to multiple occasions in which he personally called the food service
department about Cruz not receiving Passover meals. (Id. at 21:22–22:1, 25:21–
26:1.) Although Hebel testified that he could not remember whether he had
spoken with Auker directly, (id. at 32:3–14), the court finds based on Auker’s
testimony—as discussed above—that Hebel’s calls to the food service department
would have been reported to Auker even if the two had not spoken directly.
In addition to credibility determinations, the court’s finding that Auker acted
intentionally is bolstered by the evidence that he received Cruz’s grievance
complaining about reduced meal portions no later than April 8, the date on which
Cruz began to not receive his Passover meals. (Id. at 134:2–20.)
Given the court’s credibility determinations and Defendant Auker’s apparent
motive to deny Cruz his Passover meals based on the grievance he filed against
16
him, the court finds that Auker’s act of leaving Cruz off the spreadsheet of inmates
who were slated to receive Passover meals was intentional.
With respect to Defendant Marzzacco, the court finds that she did not do
anything to intentionally violate Cruz’s civil rights. The court finds her testimony
credible that she simply received a list of inmates who were to be given Passover
meals and followed that list. (Id. at 141–43.) The court also finds her testimony
credible that she did not recall any instance of Hebel or anyone else talking to her
about Cruz not receiving Passover meals. (Id. at 144.)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Liability
A prison official violates a prisoner’s First Amendment right to free exercise
of religion if he takes an action that impinges on the plaintiff’s sincerely held
religious belief without a legitimate penological reason for doing so. Turner v.
Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987); DeHart v. Horn, 227 F.3d 47, 52 (3d Cir. 2000).
Defendant Auker violated Cruz’s sincerely held religious beliefs by
intentionally withholding Passover meals from him. There was no legitimate
penological reason for Auker doing so. Rather, he was motivated by animus
towards Cruz because Cruz filed a grievance against him shortly before Passover
began.
17
A government official violates a plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to
equal protection when he intentionally treats the plaintiff differently from other
similarly situated individuals and there is no rational basis for the different
treatment. Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). Defendant
Auker intentionally treated Cruz differently from similarly situated inmates
Kenneth White and Granville Tucker when he denied Cruz Passover meals, and
there was no rational basis for the different treatment.
Defendant Marzzacco was not personally involved in either constitutional
violation because the record shows that she simply followed the list as it was
written and had no role in excluding Cruz from the list. See Jutrowski v. Township
of Riverdale, 904 F.3d 280, 289–90 (holding that defendant may only be liable for
civil rights violation based on her own actions and not simply because she is in the
vicinity of where a civil rights violation occurred).
B. Damages
For a prisoner plaintiff to recover damages “for mental or emotional injury
suffered while in custody” the plaintiff must make “a prior showing of physical
injury or the commission of a sexual act.” 42 U.S.C. 1997e(e). To satisfy this
physical injury requirement, the plaintiff must establish “a less-than-significant-
but-more-than-de minimis physical injury as a predicate to allegations of emotional
injury.” Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 536 (3d Cir. 2003).
18
Cruz cannot recover compensatory damages in this case because the
physical injuries he testified to—temporary difficulty sleeping, low energy, and
“growing pain type pains” in his knees—are de minimis. Thus, because the PLRA
bars compensatory damages, the court will award Cruz nominal damages of $1.
Additionally, although Cruz may not recover compensatory damages, this
does not by itself bar him from recovering punitive damages: punitive damages
may be awarded “based solely on a constitutional violation, provided the proper
showing is made.” Allah v. Al-Hafeez, 226 F.3d 247, 251 (3d Cir. 2000). “The
purpose of punitive damages is to punish the defendant for his willful or malicious
conduct and to deter others from similar behavior.” Id. (quoting Memphis v. Cmty.
Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 99, 306 n.9 (1986)). These damages arise solely
from the violation of the constitutional right and are not considered damages for
mental or emotional harm that are barred by Section 1997e(e). Id. Thus, “when
the defendant’s conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when
it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of
others,” the plaintiff may recover punitive damages even in the absence of
compensatory damages. Id. (quoting Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983))).
The court finds that punitive damages against Defendant Auker are
appropriate in this case. As the court found above, Auker was aware that Cruz was
supposed to be on the list of inmates receiving Passover meals before the holiday
19
began, but intentionally removed him from that list. He also was informed of
Cruz’s absence from the list multiple times before relenting and putting him on the
list six days after the holiday began. These actions show a callous indifference to
Cruz’s right to practice his religion.
When considering the appropriate amount of punitive damages, courts
should consider “(1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s misconduct;
(2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and
the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages
awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable
cases.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 418 (2003)
(citing BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 575 (1996)).
The court finds that an award of $10,000 of punitive damages against
Defendant Auker is appropriate. To begin, the initial action by Auker to remove
Cruz from the list of inmates who were to receive Passover meals was
reprehensible because Auker denied Cruz the opportunity to observe his religion in
retaliation for Cruz’s prior grievance against him. The court finds that the action
became more reprehensible with each instance that Cruz or another individual
informed Auker that he was not on the list and Auker continued to not correct his
initial action. This choice to willfully repeat the act that violated Cruz’s
constitutional rights makes Auker’s actions more morally culpable. See, e.g.,
20
Washington v. Gilmore, 124 F.4th 178, 186 (3d Cir. 2024) (finding that repeated
conduct was a “subfactor” that increased the reprehensibility of the defendant’s
conduct (citing State Farm, 538 U.S. at 419)); Brilla v. Petit, 57 F. App’x 947,
948–49 (3d Cir. 2003) (finding that there was sufficient basis for punitive damages
where defendant repeatedly refused to return personal property to plaintiff despite
being informed that he should return the property).
Turning next to the relationship between actual harm and punitive damages,
the court finds that a relatively modest amount of punitive damages in the amount
of $10,000 is warranted given that Cruz suffered only de minimis physical harm
and no economic harm as a result of Auker’s actions.
Finally, $10,000 appears to be a reasonable sum of punitive damages in
relation to other recent awards of punitive damages in cases where a defendant
violated a plaintiff’s civil rights and the plaintiff suffered no or minimal physical
injuries. See, e.g., Wexler v. Hawkins, 173 F.4th 478, 485–90 (3d Cir. 2026)
(reducing punitive damages award from $250,000 to $12,000 in case where
defendants were found liable for excessive force, assault and battery, retaliation,
false imprisonment, false arrest, and malicious prosecution arising from actions
during plaintiff’s arrest in which plaintiff suffered minor physical injuries);
Simonds v. Boyer, No. 2:21-CV-00841, 2026 WL 2093764, at *3–5 (W.D. Pa. July
21, 2026) (reducing jury’s verdict of $400,000 in punitive damages to $200,000
21
where defendant was found liable for constitutional violations but plaintiff suffered
no physical injury and $50,000 in compensatory damages were awarded); Murray
v. McCoy, No. 1:21-CV-00320, 2026 WL 923621, at *24–33 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 6,
2026) (upholding jury’s award of $20,000 in punitive damages where defendant
prison official violated plaintiff’s civil rights by filing false misconduct charges
against him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights); Hollobaugh
v. Roberts, 2:21-CV-00069 (W.D. Pa. jury verdict issued Aug. 30, 2022) (awarding
plaintiff $5,000 in punitive damages for case in which defendant violated his rights
during traffic stop and plaintiff suffered unspecified physical injuries); Cole v.
Encapera, No. 2:15-CV-00104 (W.D. Pa. jury verdict issued Mar. 13, 2020)
(awarding plaintiff $1,000 in punitive damages from each defendant in case where
defendant police officers were found liable for retaliating against plaintiff
restaurant owner and otherwise violating plaintiff’s rights after he complained that
officers were harassing female customers at his restaurant).
22
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court will enter judgment in favor of Cruz
with respect to his claims against Defendant Auker and enter judgment in favor of
Defendant Marzzacco with respect to the claims against her. Defendant Auker will
be ordered to pay $1 in nominal damages and $10,000 in punitive damages to
Plaintiff. An appropriate order follows.
s/Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Court Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: August 18, 2026
23