A citizen of California was visiting a state park in Nevada and was injured when a poorly maintained hiking trail collapsed. The citizen filed a lawsuit in federal court against the State of Nevada, seeking $200,000 in damages for negligence. Nevada has not waived its sovereign immunity. Is the court likely to dismiss the lawsuit?
No, because the federal court has diversity jurisdiction over a lawsuit between citizens of different states.
No, because the Ex parte Young doctrine allows suits against states for constitutional violations.
Yes, but only because the suit was not filed against the specific state official responsible for park maintenance.
Yes, because the Eleventh Amendment bars a private citizen from suing a state in federal court for monetary damages without the state's consent.
The correct answer is that the suit will likely be dismissed because the Eleventh Amendment grants states sovereign immunity from lawsuits for monetary damages brought by private citizens in federal court without the state's consent. This immunity applies to suits brought by citizens of another state, as in this case. Nevada has not consented to the suit, so the jurisdictional bar of the Eleventh Amendment applies. Federal diversity jurisdiction does not overcome Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Ex parte Young doctrine is inapplicable here because it allows for suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief, not suits against the state itself for retroactive monetary damages. While a suit might potentially be brought against a specific state official in their personal capacity, the suit as filed against the State of Nevada is barred by sovereign immunity.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.