Rothfeld v. Birk

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: March 9, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-4065
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TZVI DOV ROTHFELD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-04065 (UNA) ) LEA BIRK, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on its initial review of the Complaint

(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”), ECF No. 2. For the reasons explained below, it denies Plaintiff’s IFP Application, and it

dismisses this matter for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s IFP Application is unsigned, in contravention

of Federal Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); therefore, it is denied. The Complaint fares no

better. Plaintiff, who is a citizen of several countries, including the United States, currently resides

in Israel, and sues two individuals, Lea Birk and Eden Bien Bachar, both of whom also reside in

Israel. See Compl. at 1–2. He alleges that, “around 2022,” Defendants engaged in “surveillance

and wiretapping and made use of the intercepted materials in their arguments before judicial

tribunals in Israel, thereby causing severe harm to the Plaintiff’s privacy.” See id. at 2. He

contends that these actions violated the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, and he demands an injunction

and damages. See id. at 2–3.

Privacy Act jurisdiction extends to claims arising from a federal agency’s alleged improper

access, collection, maintenance, use, or dissemination of personal information in records, and it

does not create a right of action against individuals of any kind. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1); Martinez v. BOP, 444 F.3d 620, 624 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (collecting authority);

Ashbourne v. Hansberry, 302 F. Supp. 3d 338, 346 (D.D.C. 2018) (same), aff’d, Nos. 25-5136,

25-5146, 2025 WL 3493414 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (per curiam); Kursar v. Transp. Sec. Admin, 751 F.

Supp. 2d 154, 164–65 (D.D.C. 2010) (same) (collecting cases), aff’d, 442 Fed. Appx. 565, (D.C.

Cir. 2011) (per curiam); Mittleman v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 773 F. Supp. 442, 450 (D.D.C. 1991)

(collecting cases) (same). Here, Plaintiff has not sued a federal agency; he has sued two

individuals, and indeed, two individuals who seemingly have no affiliation with the federal

government.

Accordingly, this matter is dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies

this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: March 9, 2026

Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge