Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Homes, Inc. v. Village of Burnham, 910 F.2d 1474, 1480 (7th Cir.1990), the City argues that a state court action for mandamus would provide all the relief that the plaintiffs seek, precluding their procedural due process claim. These cases rest on the principle that when a state officer acts in a “random and unauthorized” way—by unpredictably departing from state law, for example—the state has no opportunity to provide a pre-deprivation hearing and may instead satisfy due process by providing an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Easter House v. Felder, 910 F.2d 1387, 1402 (7th Cir.1990) (en banc). But mandamus would be an incomplete remedy here. Pro’s is asking for more than an injunction compelling the City to issue an unrestricted liquor license. Cf. Schwartz, 330 F.3d at 941 (<HOLDING>). The owners of Pro’s seek damages to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiffs who sought injunctive relief under 42 usc  1983 could get same relief in a state court mandamus action (B) holding that 42 usc  1983 relief is available in some circumstances where state actions interfere with the bargaining process (C) holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983 (D) holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer (E) recognizing right of prisoners to seek relief under 42 usc  1983 for denial of access to the courts
Output (English): holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983