Background
Sadie Evans alleged that a Gwinnett County law-enforcement officer sexually assaulted and falsely imprisoned her on January 13, 2023. She sued the officer and Gwinnett County in January 2025, voluntarily dismissed that action in March, and filed a timely renewal action in September 2025.
Evans asserted state-law claims against the officer and claims against the County including respondeat superior and negligent employment, training, and supervision. After the County moved to dismiss, Evans amended her complaint to characterize her assault, sexual assault, and false-imprisonment claims against the officer as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The trial court dismissed all claims against the County on sovereign-immunity grounds and dismissed the Section 1983 claims against the officer as time-barred. Other claims against the officer remained pending.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court’s order was not final because Evans’s claims against the officer for intentional infliction of emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorney fees remained pending, and the trial court had not entered the express certification required by OCGA § 9-11-54(b).
Although OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(15) permits a direct appeal from an order granting or denying sovereign immunity, Evans did not challenge the sovereign-immunity ruling on appeal. She challenged only the dismissal of her Section 1983 claims against the officer as untimely. Applying the issue-raised rule, the court held that the sovereign-immunity provision did not supply direct-appeal jurisdiction over that separate limitations issue.
Key Takeaways
- A dismissal order resolving fewer than all claims is not final without the required OCGA § 9-11-54(b) determination and direction.
- Direct-appeal jurisdiction under Georgia’s sovereign-immunity provision depends on the issue actually raised on appeal.
- A party seeking review of a nonfinal limitations ruling must use the proper interlocutory appellate procedure when no direct-appeal basis applies.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that a litigant cannot use an immunity ruling in a mixed dismissal order as a vehicle for direct appellate review of an unrelated, nonfinal ruling. Appellate counsel must assess both whether claims remain pending and whether the issue presented falls within the particular direct-appeal statute invoked.