Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf
Page Number: 18

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

15 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

[was] still a live controversy as to the adequacy” of the no-
tice.  Id., at 307.  Although the new notice might have given
the nonmembers most of what they sought, they still pos-
sessed “ ‘a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome 
of the litigation.’ ”  Id., at 307–308.  And that was enough. 

The  situation  here  is  essentially  the  same.    Petitioners 
got most, but not all, of the prospective relief they wanted,
and that means that the case is not dead. 

B 
The case is not moot for a separate and independent rea-
son: If this Court were to hold, as petitioners request and 
as I believe we should, that 38 N. Y. C. R. R. §5–23 violated 
petitioners’ Second Amendment right, the District Court on 
remand could (and probably should) award damages.  See 
Mission  Product  Holdings,  587  U. S.,  at  ___.   Petitioners 
brought  their  claims  under  42  U. S. C.  §1983,  which  per-
mits the recovery of damages.  See Monell v. New York City 
Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U. S. 658, 695–701 (1978).  And 
while the amended complaint does not expressly seek dam-
ages, it is enough that it requests “[a]ny other such further
relief as the [c]ourt deems just and proper.”  App. 48.  Under 
modern pleading standards, that suffices. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a “final 
judgment should grant the relief to which each party is en-
titled, even if the party has not demanded that relief in its 
pleadings.”  Rule  54(c)  (emphasis  added);  see  also  10  C.
Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure 
§§2662, 2664 (4th ed. 2014) (Wright & Miller).5  Courts have 
—————— 

5 Lower  courts  have  affirmed  that  Fed.  Rule  Civ.  Proc.  54(c)  means 
what it says: “[R]elief in damages is not foreclosed by plaintiff ’s failure 
to ask for damages in prayer.”  Jet Inv., Inc. v. Department of Army, 84 
F. 3d  1137,  1143  (CA9  1996);  Illinois  Physicians  Union  v.  Miller,  675 
F. 2d 151, 158 (CA7 1982) (“It is well-settled that the district court may 
grant  monetary  relief  . . .  ,  even  without  a  specific  request”);  United 
States v. Marin, 651 F. 2d 24, 30 (CA1 1981) (affirming award of damages 
although  not  expressly  requested  in  complaint);  Sapp  v.  Renfroe,  511