Whether a court is obligated to afford relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c) when relief was not sufficiently requested, and whether due process rights were violated by a state official's immediate assignment of a bank to FDIC receivership before notifying owners

In this case, a state official seized a bank’s assets of $300 million , obtained an ex parte order of possession from a state court for allegedly being undercapitalized , and immediately transferred receivership of the bank to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corpora-tion (FDIC) representative before notifying the bank’s owners so that state remedies available to stop placement in receivership or to return possession for a wrongful seizure w as foreclosed. A lawsuit was initiated against the State over, inter alia, its denial of due process, but the Tenth Circuit held that relief was waived because the complaint sought pre -deprivation, rather than post -deprivation relief, even though the same facts supported the latter. In addition , the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that any relief owed now belonged to the FDIC, the actual beneficiary of the due -process violation. The Questions Presented are: 1. Whether a court is obligated to afford relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c) , rather than be deemed waived , because it holds the relief – not the underlying facts – was not sufficiently requested ? 2. Whether Petitioner’s due -process rights were violated by a process that insulated state officials from accountability by permitting immediate assignment to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as the re-ceiver of a bank before even notifying the bank’s own-ers so that the state officials faced no accountability ii and the FDIC as receiver succeeded to any due -process claims that the bank’s owners could have asserted?