DECISION & ORDER Defendants have filed motions to dismiss this action. See dkt. #s 18, 30. They argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, and that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The parties have briefed the issues and the Court has determined to decide the matter without oral argument. I. BACKGROUND This case concerns Plaintiff Jane Doe’s1 claims that she suffered housing discrimination from Defendants YWCA of Northeastern New York and Dozer Blaze Properties, LLC. See Complaint (“Complt.”), dkt. # 1. Plaintiff alleges that her spouse made a death threat on September 25, 2017. Id. at 4. She contends that the Defendants “impermissibly requir[ed]” that she “ [accept]…harassment and discrimination as a condition of” remaining in her apartment. Id. According to Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Defendant YWCA receives federal funding to provide permanent, supportive housing for people with disabilities. Id. at 5. Defendant Dozer Blaze Properties owns the apartment where Plaintiff resided. Id. Plaintiff filed a pro-se Complaint form on April 18, 2019 containing three claims. On the same day she filed her Complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction, a declaratory judgment, and damages for violating the Fair Housing Act and the Violence Against Women Act. See dkt. # 2. The Court denied this motion on April 19, 2019. See dkt. # 6. The Court found that the Anti-Injunction Act prevented the court from enjoining a state-court eviction proceeding. Id. at 5. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice relative to other grounds for injunction, finding that Plaintiff — proceeding pro se — had not followed the necessary procedure to obtain either an Order to Show Cause or a preliminary injunction. Id. at 6. Plaintiff then filed another motion on April 23, 2019, seeking a preliminary injunction. See dkt. # 7. She sought an injunction on the state-court eviction proceedings. Id. The Court denied that motion as well, finding that the Anti-Injunction Act barred interference with the ongoing state-court eviction proceeding. Id. at 2. The Court also noted that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the Court from acting as an appeal board for any lower-court decision. Id. at 2. After the Plaintiff served the Complaint, each of the Defendants filed motions to dismiss. See dkt. #s 18, 30. Plaintiff has not responded to either motion. The motions to dismiss do not treat Plaintiff’s initial filing as the operative Complaint, but instead make arguments based on Plaintiff’s second filing, which the Court addressed in denying Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion. That document is titled “Complaint for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction; Declaratory Judgment; and Damages for violation of the Fair Housing Act; VAWA 2013′s Housing Statute — 34 U.S.C. §12491 VAWA Confidentiality Provision 34 U.S.C. §12291(b)(2).” The Court will interpret this document as an Amended Complaint, since Plaintiff would have a right to amend her initial Complaint under these circumstances. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges violations of various rights. See Amended Complaint, dkt. # 2. Plaintiff alleges that she brings this action “against the YMCA of Northeastern NY, a federal grantee of Supportive Housing For Persons with Disabilities, and Dozer2 Blaze Properties, LLC, majority owners of apartments rented by the YWCA under a scattered-site leasing model.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants, “with malicious intent…imposed discriminatory practices that included 20 months of hostile environment harassment in my apartment beginning on September 26, 2017″ after her spouse threatened her life. Id. Such conduct, she claims, violates the Fair Housing Act’s (“FHA”) prohibition on discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, family status, or disability. Id. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants “collaborat[ed] to remove [her] from [her] housing” and “to deny a new lease for” her home after the death threat. Id. at 2. They fabricated information to undermine her ability to maintain her residency in the property, all in an effort to deny her housing because of her spouse’s threat. Id. That conduct violated the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”), she claims. Id. Defendant asserts that she “bring[s] this action against the YWCA of Northeastern NY, and Dozer Blaze Properties LLC for authorizing a 60-day eviction notice on August 1, 2018 when my third party housing funds ended.” Id. at 3. As an immigrant survivor of abuse “in hiding,” Plaintiff claims, she is permitted under federal regulations to receive housing. Id. She alleges that “an Albany (New York) based abuse shelter’s Rapid Rehousing Program (RRP) paid for [her] housing from August 19, 2016 to July 31, 2018.” Id. Despite knowing that Plaintiff received this assistance, “the YMCA authorized, filed, and pursued a second action to evict [Plaintiff] on behalf of Dozer Blaze Properties, LLC, on November 13, 2018, which ended in a dismissal on December 18, 2019.” Id. The Defendants then “contrived a third eviction notice ending March 31, 2019″ and filed an eviction petition to be heard in April of that year in Schenectady County, New York. Id. Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant YWCA shared her confidential information with Melissa Loeber of Dozer Blazer Properties, permitting “Loeber to know how to target [her] possessions.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff claims that this action permitted Loeber to begin a campaign of “stalking” and “psychological terrorism” against Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff alleges that she shared information with YWCA employees about her past abuse in a “confidential setting,” and that release of such information violated the VAWA. Id. at 5. Rather than protect her, Plaintiff claims, YWCA employees “allowed Melissa Loeber to act as an enforcer for the YWCA” and “began stealth stalking activities that morphed into brazen acts of harassment.” Id. at 6. The activities about which Plaintiff complains included Loeber rearranging furniture in her apartment, damaging clothing, removing hangars from closets, and damaging property such as printers and a fax machine. Id. Plaintiff also alleges that Loeber damaged her apartment and her personal property and engaged in other destructive and harassing behavior. Id. Loeber also allegedly entered the apartment without permission or warning. Id. at 7. The YWCA’s Director of Women and Family Services, Lauren Jarrad, told Plaintiff in a January 24, 2019 email that the only way she could escape Loeber’s mistreatment would be to leave her apartment. Id. at 6. Plaintiff claims she contacted the Schenectady Police Department about this conduct three times. Id. at 8. After those visits, she alleges, officers told her to contact the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). Id. Plaintiff contacted the agency and her United States Senators about this conduct; their responses, she contends, were unsatisfactory. Id. at
10-13. Meanwhile, Plaintiff claims, the YWCA continued to ignore federal regulations. Id. at 15. Plaintiff claims that the YWCA stopped offering her services in June of 2018, even though regulations required that the YWCA provide such services until a court ordered an eviction. Id. The YWCA also continued to permit Loeber to enter her apartment. Id. Rather than assisting her in preventing such harassment, the YWCA wrote to Plaintiff’s attorney to inform her that she was residing illegally in her apartment and would have to pay rent. Id. at 16. Plaintiff claims that the YWCA had provided housing for a South American immigrant who was a victim of domestic abuse for four years but refused to provide the same assistance to her. Id. at 18. Plaintiff is “a Black, English speaking immigrant survivor from a former British Colony.” Id. Despite receiving funding to aid survivors of domestic abuse, Plaintiff claims, the YWCA did nothing “to protect or aid” Plaintiff. Id. at 19. Plaintiff alleges that an attorney assigned to her case by Legal Aid of Northeastern New York spent 60 hours investigating her case and concluded that “the YWCA was not compliant with state or federal laws; that they were retaliatory; and had developed a housing program that ignored HUD regulations, as well as due process and civil rights laws.” Id. at 21. Plaintiff further claims that, after a court refused to evict Plaintiff on December 18, 2018, Defendants “employed another strategy to remove [her] from [her] home.” Id. at 26. On January 29, 2019, she claims, “Homeland Security Agents were sent to my residence based on a false tip.” Id. Agents quickly discovered that she was authorized to remain in the United States as “a credible Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Petitioner awaiting my social security number and work permit.” Id. Agents advised her to contact the New York State Attorney General about her housing circumstances. Id. The Attorney General eventually recommended that Plaintiff pursue a claim in federal court with the assistance of Legal Aid. Id. at
