the plaintiff to sue the detective for malicious prosecution, 'the federal due process claim had to be dismissed. See id, at. 285-86, 114 S.Ct. 807 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“Given the state remedy and the holding of Parratt, there is neither need nor legitimacy to invoke § 1983 in this case.”). The Seventh Circuit concluded in Newsome v. McCabe, 256 F.3d 747 (7th Cir.2001), that Justice Kennedy’s concurrence was the controlling opinion in Albright. Id. at 751. Newsome therefore held, citing the Parratt-Hudson doctrine, that “a federal suit for malicious prosecution by state officers is permissible only if the state in which the plaintiff had been prosecuted does not. provide- an adequate remedy.” Llovet, 761 F.3d at 760; see also Julian v. Hanna, 732 F.3d 842, 846 (7th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>); New-some, 256 F.3d at 750-51. This .result
holding that a prison guards intentional destruction of a prisoners possessions did not give rise to a federal due process claim because state law provided an adequate postdeprivation tort remedy holding that illinois public policy did not require the application of illinois law to an illinois accident involving only indiana residents insured in indiana recognizing that the indiana tort claims act grants broad immunity to governmental employees from suit for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress holding postdeprivation remedy is adequate even when deprivation was intentional holding that a federal due process malicious prosecution claim against an indiana police officer could proceed because indiana law did not provide an adequate postdeprivation tort law remedy