Rothfeld v. Birk

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