Gullas v. September 11th Victim Compensation Fund

Background

Cecilia K. Gullas brought the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying court fees in advance. She alleged that she had filed a claim with the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund based on exposure to conditions near the World Trade Center after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. She said the Fund rejected her claim because her presence at the World Trade Center could not be confirmed. She also alleged that the Fund provided little information for an appeal and characterized its conduct as gross negligence. Gullas stated that the World Trade Center Health Program had certified her with a qualifying medical condition and sought $75,000 in damages.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the screening requirement for complaints filed without prepaying fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss such a complaint that is frivolous, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that it must read a self-represented person’s allegations generously, while still requiring enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

Claims related to the September 11 attacks. The court held that Congress gave claimants a choice between filing with the Victim Compensation Fund and bringing a traditional lawsuit for injuries from the attacks. Because Gullas filed a Fund claim, the court held that she waived her right to bring a federal damages action for the alleged harm. The court dismissed that claim for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Title IX claims. Gullas identified Title IX as a legal basis for relief, but the court found that she alleged no facts suggesting that the Fund or Allison Turkel treated people of another sex differently or acted because of sex. The court therefore dismissed the Title IX claims for failure to state a claim under the same statutory provision.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court denied leave to amend because it concluded that amendment would be futile. According to the court, Gullas could not pursue claims for harm from the September 11 attacks after filing a Fund claim, and her allegations did not concern a violation of Title IX. The court dismissed the complaint, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.