Roberts v. Gau, 0:16-cv-00797

Background

In Sept. 2015 inmate Barton Roberts became ill (vomiting, dizziness) late Friday, Sept. 25; three named corrections officers (Gondeck, Gapinski, Kopel) were not on duty that weekend.
Roberts did not request a nurse over the weekend; an unnamed inmate apparently put him on a dental sick-call list Monday, Sept. 28 (Roberts denies authoring the entry).
Roberts says he told each named officer on Monday he needed medical help; officers either told him to drink water, deferred assistance, or berated him about the sick-call entry.
A nurse saw Roberts Tuesday and suspected flu; on Oct. 1 a dentist extracted an abscessed tooth and later that evening Roberts collapsed and was diagnosed with a stroke after hospital transport.
Roberts’s expert opined he suffered a first stroke around Sept. 25–26 and that timely recognition/treatment then would have prevented a second stroke on Oct. 1; Roberts sued the three officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference.
Defendants moved for summary judgment; the court granted it, dismissing Roberts’s deliberate‑indifference claim with prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need	Roberts: officers knew or should have known his symptoms required immediate care and their inaction caused harm	Officers: were off-duty during initial alleged stroke; actions on Monday did not indicate obvious medical emergency; not criminally reckless	Court: No deliberate indifference; objective signs were not so obvious and officers not on duty at time of first stroke
Whether officers had actual knowledge (subjective component)	Roberts: he told each officer he needed help Monday	Officers: they did not receive notice of a medical sick-call; only dental sick-call noted; medical staff later did not recognize stroke from same symptoms	Court: subjective knowledge not established; lay officers not required to diagnose where medical professionals also did not recognize stroke
Causation / harmful delay	Roberts: delay between first stroke (Sept.25–26) and treatment caused second stroke; timely care would have prevented second stroke	Officers: they were not on duty within hours of the alleged first stroke and thus could not have caused the delay	Court: no causal link attributable to these defendants; they were not on duty during the relevant hours
Admissibility/weight of expert opinions	Roberts: experts opine earlier recognition/timely treatment would have prevented second stroke and that officers breached standards	Defendants: one expert offered legal conclusions; nursing standard opinions speak to negligence not the higher deliberate‑indifference standard	Court: expert testimony insufficient to create genuine issue on criminal‑recklessness standard or to overcome qualified immunity

Key Cases Cited

Enter. Bank v. Magna Bank, 92 F.3d 743 (8th Cir. 1996) (summary judgment evidence and inferences viewed most favorably to nonmoving party)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant bears initial burden to show absence of genuine dispute on material fact)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (nonmoving party cannot rest on allegations to defeat summary judgment)
Vaughn v. Gray, 557 F.3d 904 (8th Cir. 2009) (elements for deliberate indifference: objectively serious need and actual knowledge)
Gordon ex rel. Gordon v. Frank, 454 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 2006) (intentional delay shows deliberate disregard where risk would be obvious to a reasonable person)
Howard v. Kansas City Police Dep’t, 570 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2009) (qualified immunity requires showing a constitutional violation and that the right was clearly established)
Bailey v. Feltmann, 810 F.3d 589 (8th Cir. 2016) (objectively serious medical need shown by physician diagnosis or symptoms obvious to layperson)
Ryan v. Armstrong, 850 F.3d 419 (8th Cir. 2017) (deliberate indifference requires mental state akin to criminal recklessness)
Thompson v. King, 730 F.3d 742 (8th Cir. 2013) (clarifying subjective standard for deliberate indifference)
Laughlin v. Schriro, 430 F.3d 927 (8th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff alleging delay must show detrimental effect from delay)