Rugg and Dean Forrester contend that there is no evidence concerning their alleged discriminatory intent in the decision not to hire Dr. Koch for the temporary full-time faculty position in the Political Science Department. Like Johnson, this statement of their pretrial, qualified immunity appeal implicates examination of circumstantial evidence and places the threshold question of our jurisdiction at issue. See Mueller v. Tinkham, 162 F.3d 999, 1002 (8th Cir.1998) (“We have jurisdiction to review the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity, but that jurisdiction is limited to abstract issues of law and does not extend to arguments concerning the sufficiency of the evidence.”); see also GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1366 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Our jurisdiction to review a denial of
holding that second element of qualified immunity test is whether the law violated was clearly established recognizing that pretrial appellate jurisdiction in cases where qualified immunity is denied extends solely to legal issues concerning whether the complaint sufficiently alleged the violation of a clearly established right holding that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right holding that in determining whether a state officer is entitled to qualified immunity for  1983 purposes courts may not consider whether the constitutional right was clearly established before determining first that a constitutional right was violated holding that the court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must first determine whether the plaintiff states a claim of a constitutional violation at all and then must determine whether the claimed right was clearly established before proceeding to the qualified immunity question