Whether the lower courts should have liberally construed the pro se litigant's claims

QUESTION PRESENTED : 1. Whether the lower courts should have liberally construed the pro se litigant’s claims against the . state officials’ offices (the University of Baltimore) as ; claims against all six state officials (current and former university officials) in their official capacities. , Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam); Estelle v. ; _ Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Gramegna v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 675, 677-78 (11th Cir. 1988); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995); Ghana v. Holland, 226 F.3d 175,180 (3d Cir. 2000); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). 2. Whether the lower courts should have liberally construed the pro se litigant’s claims for relief against the state officials in their official capacities as prospective declaratory or injunctive relief similar to an expungement inter alia, which was properly clarified in the pro se _ litigant’s “Response (Memorandum In Opposition) to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss” filed on November 13, 2018. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Gramegna v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 675, 677-78 (11th Cir. 1988); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995); Ghana v. Holland, 226 F.3d 175,180 (3d Cir. 2000); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). . , 8. Whether the service should have been deemed proper and sufficient, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 49)(2)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E), when respondents’ counsel did not challenge the validity of : the service of the summons_and the original complaint and in fact had already received a copy of the first_amended complaint through the court's electronic-filing system. 4, Whether the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity should also be applicable to claims against the state officials’ offices in this case, the University of Baltimore, for prospective declaratory or injunctive relief. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) ii .