of a protectible interest, and (2) denial of adequate procedural protections. See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970). We consider each of these elements in turn. A. Protectible Interest To determine whether G & G has suffered a deprivation of a protectible interest, we must evaluate (1) what type of interest has been deprived, and (2) whether that interest is protected by the Due Process Clause. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-70, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2705, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). G & G’s interest arises from its public works contract; it has a property interest in being paid in full for the construction work it has completed. See Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 342, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 1822-23, 23 L.Ed.2d 349 (1969) (<HOLDING>). The state’s withholding of over $120,000 has
recognizing the potential length of the deprivation in evaluating whether a procedure is adequate holding that deprivation of property must conform to due process principles recognizing that individualized sentencing has long been a cornerstone to wisconsins criminal justice jurisprudence holding that liability under  1983 can be established by showing that the defendants either personally participated in a deprivation of the plaintiffs rights or caused such a deprivation to occur holding that wisconsins garnishment procedure allowing wages to be frozen upon request of creditors lawyer eonstituted obvious deprivation of property