positions elsewhere in the Social Services Department. According to Raffucci Alvarado and Giraud Rivera, they were removed as Regional Directors because of their party affiliation. They brought civil rights suits un der 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982), claiming that their summary demotion violated due process and their first amendment right to associate with the political party of their choice. They seek reinstatement to their former positions, back pay, and damages. Sonia Zayas moved for summary judgment in both cases, claiming she was protected by qualified immunity. Her motions were denied, and she brought this appeal to obtain interlocutory review of the denials of summary judgment on her claims of qualified immunity. See De Abadia v. Izquierdo Mora, 792 F.2d 1187, 1188-90 (1st Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Qualified immunity may shield a government
holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over statelaw tort claims on an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity holding court lacked jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeal of denial of motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity by defendants who were not public officials recognizing that this court considers only legal questions when considering interlocutory appeal from denial of qualified immunity holding that a denial of a claim of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision holding that an interlocutory appeal lies from a denial of summary judgment on a qualified immunity claim