Court held that a deprivation of an individual’s liberty interest does not state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause if adequate state post-deprivation remedies exist. Plaintiff has adequate state post-deprivation remedies including administrative remedies, a state petition for a write of habeas corpus, and a state court action for damages. Accordingly, plaintiffs claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim under federal law. We are not able, from that brief paragraph, to determine why the district court believed Zinermon applied. However, we need not further develop the district court’s analysis because § 1983 is an inappropriate vehicle for the relief Holton seeks in this suit. See Remet Corp. v. City of Chicago, 509 F.3d 816, 817 (7th Cir. 2007) (<HOLDING>). Habeas corpus provides the exclusive remedy
recognizing that this court may affirm on any ground supported by the record even if it differs from the reasoning of the district court holding that judgment may be affirmed on any ground supported by the record holding that in reviewing a district courts decision on a motion for summary judgment de novo the decision can be affirmed on any ground that finds support in the record including an alternate ground holding that a district courts ruling may be upheld on an alternative ground supported by the record holding that a grant of summary judgment may be affirmed on any independent ground revealed by the record