ROTHFELD v. BACHAR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TZVI DOV ROTHFELD, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-04066 (UNA)
)
EDEN BIEN BACHAR, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
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 without prejudice.
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, which is
also unsigned, fares no better, procedurally or substantively. “A complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
A complaint that lacks “an arguable basis either in law or in fact” is frivolous, Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and Plaintiff’s Complaint falls squarely into this category.
Plaintiff, a U.S. citizen currently residing in Israel, sues an individual, Eden Bien Bachar,
who also resides in Israel. See Compl. at 1. Plaintiff alleges that on April 4, 2023, he “sent the
Defendant a message: ‘What is your request and what is your question? Up to half the kingdom
shall be granted to you,” and that because “of this message, which was sent from the city of
London, a cause of action arose[.]” Id. at 1. Plaintiff construed this exchange, among other similar
Case 1:25-cv-04066-UNA Document 3 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 2

exchanges, as a “threat to his life and unlawful harm to his body,” causing him “fear of walking in
public,” and inability to sleep restfully. See id. at 1–2. He demands $70 million in damages. See
id. at 2.
As here, the Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (“Over the years, this Court has repeatedly held
that the federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if
they are ‘so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.’”) (quoting
Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904)); Tooley v. Napolitano, 586
F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (examining cases dismissed “for patent insubstantiality,”
including where the plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and
harassment deriving from uncertain origins.”). Indeed, a court is obligated to dismiss a complaint
as frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,”
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992), or “postulat[e] events and circumstances of a wholly
fanciful kind,” Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307–08 (D.C. Cir. 1981); see 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Accordingly, the Complaint, ECF No. 1, and this case, are dismissed without prejudice. A
separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: 	March 9, 2026
Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-04066-UNA Document 3 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 2