MEMORANDUM & ORDER Before the Court are the defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint filed by pro se plaintiff Yanping Xu (“Plaintiff”). For the reasons that follow, the amended complaint is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3). I. BACKGROUND A. Procedural History On March 8, 2019, Plaintiff commenced this action against Suffolk County, the Sheriff['s] Department (Office) of Suffolk County (the “Sheriff’s Department”), Suffolk County Sheriff Errol D. Toulon, Jr. (“Sheriff Toulon”), John Does 1-6, McCoyd Parkas & Ronan LLP (“MPR LLP”), Bill P. Parkas, Esq. (“Parkas”), and Raymond E. Van Zwienen (“Van Zwienen”) (collectively, the “Original Defendants”) alleging, inter alia, a deprivation of her Constitutional rights with regard to her eviction from the premises known as 12 Mallar Avenue, Bay Shore, New York. (ECF No. 1.) The named Original Defendants each requested a pre-motion conference in anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss the complaint and Plaintiff responded to those requests. (ECF Nos. 18, 20, 24, 29, and 31.) By Electronic Order dated August 12, 2019, the Court waived its pre-motion conference requirement and set a briefing schedule for the motions to dismiss. After receiving the moving papers from some of the Original Defendants, Plaintiff sought leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 47.) By Order dated November 15, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application and deemed the amended complaint to be the operative pleading. (ECF Nos. 47-1, 48) The amended complaint continued to name the Original Defendants but replaced the “John Does” with the following individuals, all of whom are employed by the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department: Captain Christopher Guercio (“Guercio”), and Deputy Sheriffs Stacey McGovern (“McGovern”), Peter Kirwin (“Kirwin”), Sue Desena (“Desena”), and Bridgette Sedenfelder (“Sedenfelder”) (collectively with the named Original Defendants, “Defendants”) (ECF Nos. 47-1, 49.) The Court also modified the briefing schedule to allow the Defendants who had already served their motion to serve supplemental briefs and to allow Plaintiff to file opposition papers. (ECF No. 48.) The newly-added defendants also sought leave to move to dismiss and requested a briefing schedule (ECF No. 58), which the Court set. B. Plaintiff’s Allegations and the Underlying Litigation in State Court The following facts are taken from the amended complaint and judicially noticed records of related state court proceedings. See Blue Tree Hill Inv. (Can.) Ltd. v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 369 F.3d 212, 217 (2d Cir. 2004) (taking judicial notice of state court records). This action arises from the eviction of Plaintiff from the premises known as 12 Mallar Avenue, Bay Shore, New York (the “Subject Premises”). (Am. Compl., generally, and 1.) Plaintiff alleges that she is of “Chinese national origin” and resided at the subject premises beginning in 2001 following her marriage to William H. Van Zwienen (“William” or “decedent”) who owned the subject premises prior to the marriage. (Id. 1-2.) William died on September 29, 2016. (Id.) According to the complaint, William “settled [the Subject Premises] in his revocable trust in 2008.” (Id. 1.) The William H. Van Zwienen Revocable Trust (the “Trust”), dated July 15, 2008, was funded with the subject premises and named Plaintiff as the beneficiary of the Trust. However, the Trust was subsequently amended on December 16, 2013 (“First Amendment”) and on October 17, 2014 (“Second Amendment”). (Id. 28; Decision & Order dated April 5, 2018, Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County at 1-2 (the “April Order”, ECF No. 73-6.)) The First Amendment removed Plaintiff as a beneficiary entirely and left the Trust property equally to William’s four adult children from a previous marriage. (See April Order at 1, ECF No. 73-6.) The Second Amendment permitted Plaintiff to reside at the subject premises for six (6) months after William’s death, after which the subject premises was to be sold with the proceeds equally distributed among Plaintiff and William’s four children. (Id. at 1-2, ECF No. 73-6.) Thus, under the terms of the amended Trust, Plaintiff’s possessory right to occupy the Subject Premises terminated on March 29, 2017, six (6) months after William’s death. Plaintiff refused to vacate the Subject Premises at the end of this six-month period. (See Am. Compl. generally; April Order, generally.) Accordingly, Van Zwienen — a defendant herein and one of the decedent’s four children who was named as the Executor of the decedent’s estate and as Successor Trustee of the Trust — filed a petition in the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, on December 22, 2017, to recover possession of the Subject Premises and for the ejectment of Plaintiff (the “Surrogate’s Court Action”). (Am. Compl.
28-29.) Van Zwienen was represented by MPR LLC and Parkas during these proceedings. (Id.
