Robinson’s due process rights if a suitable postdeprivation remedy existed for him to contest the forfeiture of his property. See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533. Illinois courts have created a common-law right for property owners who did not receive notice as re e exists, nor does he contend that it is an inadequate remedy. In fact, Robinson even attempted to avail himself of the remedy by filing a motion to vacate with the court that presided over his dismissed criminal charges. The fact that Robinson’s attempt was unsuccessful does not establish that the motion to vacate is inadequate to protect his right to due process. See Galdikas v. Fagan, 342 F.3d 684, 693 n.5 (7th Cir.2003) (citing plaintiffs’ state lawsuit as proof of the adequacy of postdeprivation remedies); Hamlin, 95 F.3d at 585 (<HOLDING>). If Robinson believes that the state trial and
holding that postdeprivation remedy must be meaningless or nonexistent to be inadequate holding that legislative language must not if reasonably avoidable be found to be inoperative superfluous or meaningless recognizing that prisoner alleging inadequate access to courts must show how inadequate access caused actual injury recognizing courts must interpret statutes to give effect to all language used rendering no portion meaningless or superfluous holding that a court cannot construe claims to read an express limitation out of the claim or render it meaningless