MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The pro se plaintiff commenced this action on August 11, 2021 (ECF No. 1),1 and filed an amended complaint on August 16, 2021, asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000a et seq.,2 and state law against Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, multiple individual employees and their lawyers (ECF Nos. 5 & 5-1 at 33-40, “Am. Compl.”).3 For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the action, but give the plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. BACKGROUND The plaintiff claims that on March 30, 2011, mental health workers at Zucker Hillside Hospital “brutally assaulted” him. (Am. Compl. 33.) He was subsequently “involuntarily committed” based on purportedly “false” statements that he had assaulted and cursed at a nurse, and stalked a resident. (Id.) The plaintiff filed a lawsuit challenging his commitment, and “presented evidence including an audio recording of the incidents that happened on that day that proved [he] never cursed, assaulted anyone, screamed or acted in any threatening manner.” (Id.) The defendants’ lawyer, Robert Vizza, agreed to a settlement, pursuant to which the plaintiff would sign a release, the parties would sign a settlement agreement and the defendants would delete “all false statements” in the plaintiff’s medical records from March 30, 2011 to April 6, 2011. (Id. 34.) On August 13, 2015, the plaintiff signed the release. (Id.) Vizza told the plaintiff that all the defendants had to sign the settlement agreement, and that many were “away for the summer,” so the settlement agreement would be delivered to the plaintiff for his signature in four weeks. (Id.) The plaintiff never received the agreement. (Id.) On January 3, 2021, the plaintiff wrote to the medical records director of Zucker Hillside Hospital, among others, requesting that he “delete[]” the plaintiff’s medical records. (Id. 35.) On January 15, 2021, the hospital denied his request, explaining that the hospital was “required to maintain medical records for every patient that contain sufficient, accurate information” for various reasons. (Id.; ECF No. 5-1 at 7-8.) The plaintiff alleges that the defendants refused to “remove [the] false statements” in order to “retaliate and hurt” him because he is a “colored immigrant asking a Jewish Hospital staff to correct a wrongdoing.”4 (Am. Compl. 35.) The plaintiff seeks compensatory, punitive and emotional damages. (Am. Compl.
A-C.) STANDARD OF REVIEW A federal court must “liberally construe[]” pleadings by pro se parties, who are held to less stringent standards than attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Even under this liberal standard, a pro se litigant’s complaint must plead “ enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face if it “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). While “detailed factual allegations” are not required, “[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. If a pro se action is frivolous, or if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter, a district court may dismiss the action on its own, even if the plaintiff has paid the requisite filing fee. Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh Street Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). “Failure of subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable and may be raised at any time by a party or by the court sua sponte. If subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the action must be dismissed.” Lyndonville Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Lussier, 211 F.3d 697, 700-01 (2d Cir. 2000); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Federal subject matter jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented, 28 U.S.C. §1331, or when plaintiffs and defendants are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 28 U.S.C. §1332. “Federal question jurisdiction may be properly invoked only if the plaintiff’s complaint necessarily draws into question the interpretation or application of federal law.” New York v. White, 528 F.2d 336, 338 (2d Cir. 1975). “A pro se complaint should not be dismissed without the Court granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” Dolan v. Connolly, 794 F.3d 290, 295 (2d Cir. 2015) (citation, quotation marks and alterations omitted). DISCUSSION I. Section 1983 Claims The plaintiff includes a claim for relief titled “Section 1983,” which suggests a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983. (Am. Compl.
