Fravien v. Tufts Medical Center

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
VIVION FRAVIEN, also known as
VIVIENNE FRAVIEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. 25-13633-ADB
ORDER
BURROUGHS, D.J.
Pro se plaintiff Vivion Fravien has filed a complaint against Tufts Medical Center
(“Tufts”), alleging that, while she was at the facility on November 28 and 29, 2025, she was
“physically assaulted by a Tufts security guard” named “Christopher,” her property was stolen,
Tufts staff attempted to kidnap her, and she was falsely imprisoned in a hospital room. [ECF No.
1 at 4]. In addition to seeking damages, Fravien “ask[s] the court to please have Christopher and
the other security [sic] arrested and held as an assault,” and “seek[s] a restraining order to
prevent retaliation from Christopher,” three other security officers, “and their families.” [ECF
No. 1-1 at 3, 4]. In a separate motion, Fravien asks that the Court enter a temporary restraining
order against Christopher. [ECF No. 2 at 1]. Fravien asserts: “As I sue, I need protection from
this and his co-workers who refused to give their names.” [Id.].
The Court must deny Fravien’s motion for a restraining order. As a threshold issue, the
Court cannot issue an injunction against a person who is not a party to an action, and the
complaint does not identify Chrisotpher as a defendant. Even if Fravien had named Christopher
as a defendant, the Court would still deny the motion. A federal district court cannot issue a
Case 1:25-cv-13633-ADB Document 5 Filed 12/08/25 Page 1 of 2

2
temporary restraining order without notice to the adverse party (or to their attorney) unless the
plaintiff alleges “specific facts” that “clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or
damage will result to the [plaintiff] before the [defendant] can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). In this case, Fravien has not alleged that any “immediate and irreparable”
harm would occur before a defendant could be heard in opposition to the motion.
Accordingly, the motion for temporary restraining order [ECF No. 2] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 8, 2025 	/s/ Allison D. Burroughs
ALLISON D. BURROUGHS
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-13633-ADB Document 5 Filed 12/08/25 Page 2 of 2