Adams v. Trump Administration

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 22, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-0815
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________________________ ) MARCUS E. ADAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-0815 (UNA) ) TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, a resident of Taft, Texas, Compl. ¶ 3, alleges that the Trump Administration

allowed Elon Musk access to Treasury Department systems, from which Musk “gained access to

. . . Social Security numbers, dates of birth, home addresses, credit reports, tax data, and [the]

records of every single American,” id. ¶ 8, including plaintiff, in violation of rights protected

under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, id. In addition, plaintiff alleges,

staffers of the Department of Government Efficiency “have access to systems relating to health

care, which could violate laws on protected health information, such as HIPAA.” Id. ¶ 9. In

Count I of the complaint, plaintiff brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six

Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See Compl. ¶¶ 10–

16. In Count II, plaintiff brings an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under Texas

law. See id. ¶¶ 17–18. He demands unspecified general, special, and punitive damages. See id.

¶¶ 19–20.

Plaintiff’s reliance on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens is misplaced. Section 1983 applies

only if a defendant acts “under color of any statute . . . of any State or . . . the District of

1 Columbia.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It “does not apply to federal officials acting under color of

federal law,” Davis v. U.S. Parole Bd., No. 10-cv-0390, 2010 WL 908659, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 9,

2010) (citations omitted), as these defendants would have done. The Bivens claim fails because

it cannot be brought against the United States, federal government agencies, or federal

employees in their official capacities, see, e.g., Witchard v. Surampudi, No. 24-cv-00296 (DLF),

2025 WL 928708, at *3 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2025) (dismissing Bivens claims against United States,

three federal agencies, a Justice Department attorney, and a federal judge), and there are no

factual allegations showing that Musk personally was involved in the violation of Plaintiff’s

rights such that Plaintiff would have a claim against him in his individual capacity, see, e.g.,

Ransom v. Dorko, No. 23-cv-2601 (RC), 2025 WL 870320, at *5 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2025)

(dismissing claims against Secretary of Homeland Security and supervisors based on alleged

wrongdoing of subordinates); see also Simpkins v. District of Columbia, 108 F.3d 366, 369 (D.C.

Cir. 1997) (“The complaint must at least allege that the defendant federal official was personally

involved in the illegal conduct.”). The court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s Section 1983 and

Bivens claims, and without a federal claim, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

An Order is issued separately.

/s/ RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judge DATE: May 22, 2025