JAMES F. MEROW, Senior Judge.
On October 8, 2015, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging various instances of mistreatment by the Internal Revenue Service. See Doc. 1. Plaintiff asserts three claims: "(1) damages for violation of 5 U.S.C. § 552a (the Privacy Act of 1974); (2) damages against the Defendants under `Bivens', and injunctive and declaratory relief against the IRS and Treasury Department pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, for violation of the First and Fifth Amendments; and (3) damages under 26 U.S.C. § 7431 for violation of 26 U.S.C. 6103 (for inspection and disclosure of return information)." Id. at 5.
The government contends that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain any of plaintiff's claims, and moves the court to dismiss the case in its entirety. See Doc. 7. For the following reasons, the court agrees with the government's position.
The Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction, the scope of which is set out by the Tucker Act:
28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Plaintiff must, as a threshold matter, carry the burden of establishing this court's jurisdiction. See Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (stating that plaintiff "bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence").
The first claim over which the plaintiff asks the court to assert jurisdiction allegedly arises from the Privacy Act. Plaintiff takes the position that he is entitled to both injunctive relief and monetary damages as a result of the government's unduly-burdensome or improper requests for documents and information relating to past tax years. See Doc. 1 at 15-20. The Federal Circuit has clearly held, however, that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider Privacy Act claims. See Bush v. United States, 627 F. App'x 928, 930 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Treece v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 226, 232 (2010)). See also Conner v. United States, Case No. 1:15-cv-5107, 2016 WL 125289, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 12, 2016). Therefore, plaintiff's Privacy Act claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Plaintiff alleges, in the second count of his complaint, that certain federal officials are personally liable to him for violations of his constitutional rights on the theory established by the Supreme Court of the United States in Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See Doc. 1 at 20-23. As the Federal Circuit has clearly explained, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider Bivens claims:
Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997). On this basis, plaintiff's Bivens claims alleged against any individual for violating his constitutional rights are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
In the penultimate paragraph of this second count, plaintiff also states that "the Internal Revenue Service, the department of Treasury, committed the same constitutional violations," and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. Section 2201states:
And 28 U.S.C. § 2202 expands on the authority granted in § 2201: "Further necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted, after reasonable notice and hearing, against any adverse party whose rights have been determined by such judgment."
Not only does the court fail to see how these sections relate to the allegations in plaintiff's complaint, long-standing precedent establishes this court lacks jurisdiction to act under them. See Pub. Serv. Co. of Colorado v. United States, 2 Cl. Ct. 380, 382 (1983) ("[T]he Claims Court lacks the power to award declaratory judgments under 28 U.S.C. § 2201."). Any claims based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 or 2202 are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
In the final count of the complaint, plaintiff alleges that the government violated its duty under 26 U.S.C. § 6103 to keep all information associated with his tax returns confidential. See Doc. 1 at 23-25. Taxpayers may assert a civil claim for damages resulting from a violation of § 6103 "in a district court of the United States." 26 U.S.C. § 7431(a)(1). The Court of Federal Claims is not a district court, and thus, is not empowered to consider plaintiff's claims. See Taylor v. United States, 616 F. App'x 423, 425 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Calhoun v. United States, 32 Fed. Cl. 400, 407 (1994), aff'd, 61 F.3d 918 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Plaintiff's third count is, therefore, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Throughout the complaint, plaintiff repeatedly asserts claims on behalf of himself and "his associated startup company," or "his associated company." See, e.g., Doc. 1 at 1, 3, 8, 15, 22. He also, at one point, states that he is bringing this lawsuit on his own behalf and "for the putative class." See id. at 5. Because he makes no mention of other potential class members, or any sort of general injury, the court assumes that plaintiff refers to himself and his company together as the "putative class." As the court has explained, it has no jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's claims. The court also notes that, as a pro se litigant, plaintiff is not entitled to assert claims on behalf of a corporation or other entity. See RCFC 83.1(a)(3) ("An individual who is not an attorney may represent oneself or a member of one's immediate family, but may not represent a corporation, an entity, or any other person in any proceeding before this court.").
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's complaint is, hereby,