of the TDCJ blished exception when it comes to the ability of state officers to invoke its protections. “Under Ex Parte Young, a federal court, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, may enjoin state officials to conform their future conduct to the requirements of federal law.” McCarthy ex rel. Travis v. Hawkins, 381 F.3d 407, 412 (5th Cir.2004); see also Frew, 540 U.S. at 437, 124 S.Ct. 899 (noting that Eleventh Amendment permits suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials acting in violation of federal law). Construing Mayfield’s pro se complaint liberally, we find that it seeks declaratory relief as well as a permanent injunction against Johnson and Pierce in their official capacities. See Nerren v. Livingston Police Dep’t, 86 F.3d 469, 473 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Aguilar v. Tx. Dep’t Criminal Justice, 160
holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed recognizing that we construe pro se complaints liberally recognizing courts special duty to construe liberally a pro se plaintiffs pleadings holding that pro se pleadings will be liberally construed holding that courts must construe pro se filings liberally