Sandra Outler v. Kelly Cooper

USCA11 Case: 25-11522 Document: 29-2 Date Filed: 11/10/2025 Page: 1 of 3

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:

USCA11 Case: 25-11522 Document: 29-2 Date Filed: 11/10/2025 Page: 2 of 3

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 re-

lating to his qualified-immunity defense. Outler argues that we

lack jurisdiction because all of Cooper’s arguments on appeal cen-

ter 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 jurisdic-

tion over this appeal because it challenges a denial of qualified im-

munity 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 quali-

fied immunity at the summary judgment stage is immediately ap-

pealable.”). 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,

USCA11 Case: 25-11522 Document: 29-2 Date Filed: 11/10/2025 Page: 3 of 3

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 other-

wise, 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 mo-

tion to dismiss construed from Outler’s JQ response. This appeal

may proceed.