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 Corporation (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 was 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 receiver of a bank before even notifying the bank's owners so that the state officials faced no accountability and the FDIC as receiver succeeded to any due-process claims that the bank's owners could have asserted?

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