SANDRA OUTLER
v.
KELLY COOPER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that it has jurisdiction over the appeal because the denial of qualified immunity presents issues of law, not solely issues of fact.
[1] A denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable as a collateral order even though the underlying case is not final, where the defendant raises legal questions ab…
[2] Appellate jurisdiction over a denial of qualified immunity is lacking if the appeal raises only issues of fact.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A trial court's denial of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage is immediately appealable.”
Citation to Haney v. City of Cumming, 69 F.3d 1098, 1101 (11th Cir. 1995), establishing the immediate appealability of qualified immunity denials.
Plaintiff sued prison employees for deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment after an inmate died. Defendant Cooper, a correctional officer,…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Eighth Amendment Deliberate Indifference cases and more on FLexlaw
BY THE COURT:
2 Order of the Court 25-11522
Sandra Outler, acting in her capacity as administrator of the estate of Angel Ortiz, sued the Georgia Department of Corrections and various employees of Calhoun State Prison, asserting claims of deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment based on the death of Ortiz while he was incarcerated. Defendant Kelly Cooper, a correctional officer at Calhoun State Prison, moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. On March 31, 2025, the district court denied Cooper's motion, concluding that he was not entitled to qualified immunity. Cooper appeals that ruling.
A jurisdictional question (“JQ") asked the parties to address whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Cooper argues that we have jurisdiction because this appeal presents issues of law relating to his qualified-immunity defense. Outler argues that we lack jurisdiction because all of Cooper's arguments on appeal center on the issue of whether he had subjective knowledge of a risk of harm to Ortiz, which is an issue of fact.
Although the March 31 order is not final, we have jurisdiction over this appeal because it challenges a denial of qualified immunity that presents an issue of law. See Haney v. City of Cumming, 69 F. 3d 1098, 1101 (11th Cir. 1995) (“A trial court's denial of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage is immediately appealable."). We would lack jurisdiction over this appeal if the only issues that Cooper raised were issues of fact. See Hall v. Flournoy, 975 F. 3d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir. 2020). However, Cooper argues in his merits brief that, even if he violated the Eighth Amendment, that violation was not clearly established at the relevant time,
25-11522 Order of the Court 3
which is an issue of law. See Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F. 3d 1480, 1484 (11th Cir. 1996). Unlike in English v. City of Gainesville, Cooper's arguments about whether the law was clearly established are not limited to disputes over the district court's weighing of the facts in the record but, rather, require abstract legal analysis. See 75 F. 4th 1151, 1156 (11th Cir. 2023). Additionally, Cooper's argument that his response to the risk of harm suffered by Ortiz was objectively reasonable, and that the district court erred by concluding otherwise, is also an issue of law.
Because Cooper raises a legal issue regarding the district court's denial of qualified immunity, we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Hall, 975 F. 3d at 1276. Accordingly, we DENY the motion to dismiss construed from Outler's JQ response. This appeal may proceed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480 (11th Cir. 1996)
- Haney v. City OF Cumming, 69 F.3d 1098 (11th Cir. 1995)
- Rayvie Hall v. Flournoy, 975 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2020)
- English v. Officer Jonathan Fowler, 75 F.4th 1151 (11th Cir. 2023)