ALLEN KRUPAR, JR., and SHARON KRUPAR v. City of Parma Heights

*The Hon. Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting
by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0654n.06
Filed: August 3, 2005
04-3951
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ALLEN KRUPAR, JR., and SHARON
KRUPAR,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF PARMA HEIGHTS; Patrolman
MOLNAR; Patrolman KUNKER; Sergeant
GREEN; Patrolman DEILY; Sergeant
SCHEURING; and Patrolman MEHLMAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Before: SUHRHEINRICH and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges, and HOOD, * District
Judge.
PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs Allen Krupar and his mother, Sharon Krupar, brought suit
against the City of Parma Heights and six city police officers alleging deliberate indifference
to Allen Krupar’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments. Krupar, who has severe mental health problems, was arrested by the Parma
Heights Police Department after assaulting his mother. When Krupar appeared in court the
morning after his arrest, he turned and – in what the complaint describes as “an act of self-

-- 1 of 3 --

04-3951
Krupar v. City of Parma Heights
- 2 -
mutilation” – ran into a wall head-first, causing permanent paralysis. The Krupars argue
that the defendants showed deliberate indifference to Allen Krupar’s mental health needs
by failing to conduct a full-scale psychological evaluation and failing to hospitalize him
before his court appearance. The plaintiffs now appeal the district court’s determination,
on summary judgment, that they failed to establish deliberate indifference on the part of the
defendants. The Krupars further allege on appeal that the district court erred by staying
discovery pending the resolution of the motion for summary judgment and by dismissing,
rather than remanding, the Krupars’ state claim.
The undisputed evidence in the record shows that the defendants acted
appropriately to address Krupar’s needs by placing him on suicide watch at the jail and
issuing him his psychiatric medication. Krupar had no clearly established constitutional
right to immediate hospitalization for his mental health problems. In the absence of proof
of a clearly established constitutional right, the district court correctly granted summary
judgment in favor of the defendants.
Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion by staying discovery pending
a ruling on the motion for summary judgment. In evaluating the threshold legal questions
regarding qualified immunity, the district court relied on facts that had been conceded by
the plaintiffs. Furthermore, the plaintiffs did not request further discovery, as required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), and there is no indication that additional discovery
would have changed the outcome of the case.

-- 2 of 3 --

04-3951
Krupar v. City of Parma Heights
- 3 -
There was likewise no abuse of discretion in the decision to dismiss the plaintiffs’
pendent state claims.
Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal
and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in dismissing
the complaint. Because the reasons why judgment should be entered for the defendants
have been fully articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed opinion by this
court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we AFFIRM
the judgment of the district court upon the reasoning set out by that court in its
memorandum opinion and order dated July 1, 2004.

-- 3 of 3 --