OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Chen Xu brings this action pro se against Defendant the City of New York (the “City”). Before me are Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, (Doc. 28), and Defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, (Doc. 32). Because I abstain from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, and in the alternative find Plaintiff’s allegations to be insufficient under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and, therefore, I do not reach a decision on Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. I. Background1 Plaintiff alleges that on Friday, March 15, 2019, at 8:20 pm, two women from the Administration for Children’s Services (“ACS”) came to her apartment stating that they received a report from a doctor’s office conveying that Plaintiff was insisting that her son was sick despite the doctor’s diagnoses to the contrary. (Doc. 51 24.) Plaintiff claims she explained to the two ACS representatives that her “son has Hydronephrosis,” (id. at 25), and then called 911 to come and confirm whether the two women were indeed from ACS, (id. at 27). Plaintiff asserts that ACS questioned her son, and at around 11 p.m., ACS employees called an ambulance and forced Plaintiff, her son, and her parents to a hospital emergency room. (Id. at 34.) Plaintiff alleges she was forced to stay at the hospital with her son and family until 4:00 p.m. on Monday, March 18, 2019. (Id. 38.) On March 18, 2019, ACS instituted an ex parte proceeding in New York Family Court pursuant to New York Family Court Act Section 1027, requesting a remand of Plaintiff’s son to the custody of ACS. (See Doc. 34, Ex. A.) ACS described for the court that, during its initial encounter with Plaintiff on March 15, 2019, ACS employees asked for documentation of Plaintiff’s son’s medical history, which Plaintiff refused to provide. (Id. at 10:2-21.) Plaintiff’s refusal, coupled with ACS’s awareness that “[Plaintiff] ha[d] brought the child to several medical appointments and hospitals in different states” and might be displaying symptoms of “Munchausen by proxy,” led authorities to take Plaintiff and her son to New York Presbyterian Hospital where Plaintiff’s son was held until Section 1027 proceedings could be instituted. (Id. at 5:7-21.) At the conclusion of the Section 1027 hearing, Judge Clark V. Richardson ordered that Plaintiff’s son be placed in the custody of ACS and further ordered authorization for the provision of any necessary emergency medical care for the child. (See id. and Doc. 34, Ex. C.) On March 25, 2019, the Family Court held an order to show cause hearing pursuant to New York Family Court Act Section 1028, which Plaintiff attended. (Doc. 34, Ex. D.) Plaintiff testified that her son suffered from a serious heart disease and had only a “30 percent chance to survive,” necessitating attentive medical care. (Id. at 3:24-4:15). Judge Richardson immediately dismissed the order to show cause with leave to refile, and instructed ACS to consider what Plaintiff had said about her son’s medical issues and address the health concerns accordingly. (See id. at 5:4-9.) On April 12, 2019, the Family Court resumed its Section 1028 proceeding. (Doc. 34, Ex. F.) Plaintiff was present at this proceeding and presented her son’s medical records to the court. (Doc. 51 64.) After considering the evidence, Judge Richardson ruled against Plaintiff. Judge Richardson found that returning Plaintiff’s son to her custody would present an “imminent risk to th[e] child’s life and health,” and further concluded that “[i]t [was] clear from the evidence” that the Plaintiff had “forc[ed] the child to undergo some very…painful procedures” despite doctors telling Plaintiff that “they [saw] nothing to be alarmed about.” (Id. at 3:19-5:12.) Plaintiff appealed Judge Richardson’s ruling to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, but her appeal was denied on May 23, 2019. (See Doc. 34, Ex. H.) In connection with the Family Court proceedings, Judge Richardson also issued two Temporary Orders of Protection against Plaintiff, preventing her from contacting her son outside of Agency Supervised Visitation. (See Doc. 34, Ex. I, Ex. J.) Plaintiff alleges that since April 12, 2019, ACS has improperly vaccinated her son and failed to appropriately treat him. (See Doc. 51 at
