Sandra Outler v. Kelly Cooper | Docket

Sandra Outler v. Kelly Cooper

Sandra Outler, as administrator of Angel Manuel Ortiz’s estate, sued prison officials for deliberate indifference after Ortiz died while incarcerated. The district court denied correctional officer Kelly Cooper’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The Eleventh Circuit held that it had jurisdiction over Cooper’s interlocutory appeal because he raised legal issues concerning whether the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established and whether his response was objectively reasonable, and denied Outler’s motion to dismiss.

Docket

Court

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Court level

appellate

Jurisdiction

Federal

Date filed

November 10, 2025

Parties

KELLY COOPER · appellantTAMARSHE SMITH · defendantvarious employees of Calhoun State Prison · defendantGeorgia Department of Corrections · defendantSANDRA OUTLER · appellee

Judges

ROSENBAUM · majorityNEWSOM · majorityKIDD · majority

Status

published

Disposition

Motion to dismiss DENIED; appeal may proceed.

Opinion type

combined

Format

other

Nature of suit

Other Civil Rights

Source

View PDF

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 25-11522

SANDRA OUTLER, as Administrator of the Estate of Angel Manuel Ortiz deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TAMARSHE SMITH, in his Official Capacity as Warden of Calhoun State Prison and Individual Capacity , et al., Defendants, KELLY COOPER, in his Individual Capacity , Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-00049-LAG

Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and KIDD, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

Page 2Sandra 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, Page 3which 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.