Barton Roberts v. Sergeant Kopel, 917 F.3d 1039

Background

In September 2015 while incarcerated at MCF–St. Cloud, Roberts began vomiting and experiencing dizziness, headaches, numbness, and inability to eat starting the night of Sept. 25. He remained in his cell through the weekend and reported illness to multiple corrections officers but received no treatment; the three named officers were not on duty that weekend.
On Monday, Sept. 28, Roberts was able to stand and leave his cell; he says he told three named corrections officers he needed medical attention but did not request sick call or submit a written kite. The officers do not recall contact.
On Tuesday, Sept. 29, a Washington County nurse examined Roberts for a court appearance; the nurse’s chart largely notes denial of many symptoms and advised hydration.
On Oct. 1, MCF medical staff (intake nurse and on‑duty physician) saw Roberts; the physician attributed symptoms to the flu and an abscessed tooth and recommended dental surgery. Roberts later reported facial numbness that evening; medical staff responded immediately, called an ambulance, and Roberts was diagnosed with a stroke.
Roberts sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the three corrections officers were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need arising from an earlier, Sept. 25 stroke (per his expert). The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether corrections officers were deliberately indifferent to an objectively serious medical need on Sept. 28	Roberts: his persistent vomiting, dizziness, numbness and statements to officers evidenced an obvious serious condition requiring immediate care (alleged earlier stroke)	Officers: either were not on duty that weekend; on Sept. 28 they did not observe an obvious emergency, and trained medical staff later assessed symptoms as non‑emergent	Held: No deliberate indifference. Lay officers cannot be expected to diagnose when medical professionals, given the same information, did not identify an emergency.
Whether officers’ alleged failure over Sept. 26–27 can support liability	Roberts: officers were aware of his illness over the weekend	Officers: the three named defendants were not working those days	Held: No liability for those days because defendants were not on duty.
Whether testimony and expert opinion that an earlier stroke occurred creates triable issue	Roberts: expert opines stroke occurred Sept. 25, so delay in care was harmful	Defendants: even assuming prior stroke, medical professionals later evaluated him and recommended non‑urgent care; no evidence officers knew of a substantial risk	Held: Expert evidence did not show that prompt treatment on Sept. 28 would have altered outcome nor that officers actually knew of a substantial risk.
Standard for lay‑person recognition of serious need	Roberts: symptoms were obvious to a layperson and required intervention	Defendants: trained medical staff who heard same complaints judged non‑emergent; lay officers cannot be held to higher standard	Held: Court applies precedent that if trained clinicians did not recognize a serious need, reasonable lay officers cannot be expected to do so.

Key Cases Cited

A.H. v. St. Louis Cty., 891 F.3d 721 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment cited)
Roberson v. Bradshaw, 198 F.3d 645 (8th Cir.) (elements of deliberate indifference claim)
Aswegan v. Henry, 49 F.3d 461 (8th Cir.) (layperson cannot be expected to recognize serious need when trained clinicians do not)
Carpenter v. Gage, 686 F.3d 644 (8th Cir.) (same principle regarding lay recognition)
Christian v. Wagner, 623 F.3d 608 (8th Cir.) (same principle regarding lay recognition)
Estate of Cheney v. Collier, [citation="560 F. App'x 271"] (5th Cir.) (distinguishing negligence from Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference)