ROTHFELD v. BIRK et al

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);
Case 1:25-cv-04065-UNA Document 3 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 2

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
Case 1:25-cv-04065-UNA Document 3 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 2