Fravien v. MGM Fenway Music Hall et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-13208-RGS
VIVIENNE FRAVIEN
v.
MGM FENWAY MUSIC HALL and LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
March 21, 2026
STEARNS, D.J.
For the reasons stated below, the motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF 2) is ALLOWED and this action is DISMISSED pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
BACKGROUND
On 	October 	30, 	2025, 	Vivienne 	Fravien 	filed 	her 	self-prepared
complaint on the preprinted Pro Se 7 form complaint for employment
discrimination. [ECF No. 1]. 	Plaintiff asserts claims pursuant to Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and M.G.L. c. 149,
§§ 105F (covered employers), 148 (payment of wages). [Id. at ¶ II). 	Named
as defendants are MGM Fenway Music Hall and Live Nation. Id. at ¶ I(B)).
Fravien was employed by defendants for several months in 2022. 	Id. at ¶
III). On the civil cover sheet and category form accompanying the complaint,
Fravien indicates that this action is related to No. 25-cv-11661-RGS. [ECF 1-
1 at ¶ VIII], ECF 1-2 at ¶ 3].
Case 1:25-cv-13208-RGS Document 4 Filed 03/21/26 Page 1 of 4

2
With the complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. 	[ECF No. 2].
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
The financial disclosures made in Fravien’s motion adequately
demonstrate that she is without income or assets to pay the filing fee. The
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is, accordingly, allowed.
PRELIMINARY SCREENING
When, as here, a plaintiff proceeds without legal representation, the
court must construe the complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520-21 (1972); Rodi v. S. New Eng. Sch. of Law, 389 F.3d 5, 13 (1st Cir.
2004). Even so, the court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if it
“(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An action is frivolous if it “lacks
an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
325 (1989).
DISCUSSION
As noted by Fravien herself, she previously filed an action against these
defendants concerning her 2022 employment. See Fravien v. MGM Fenway
Music 	Hall, 	et 	al., 	C.A. 	No. 	25-11661-RGS 	(D. 	Mass. 	July 	28, 	2025)
(dismissing pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).
Case 1:25-cv-13208-RGS Document 4 Filed 03/21/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Any claims that Fravien may be seeking to raise in the instant
complaint are barred by the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion.1
The doctrine of claim preclusion prohibits parties from contesting issues that
they have had a “full and fair opportunity to litigate.” Taylor v. Sturgell, 553
U.S. 880, 892 (2008). The doctrine of claim preclusion applies when there
is “(1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier suit, (2) sufficient
identicality between the causes of action asserted in the earlier and later
suits, and (3) sufficient identicality between the parties in the two suits.”
Foss v. Marvic, Inc., 103 F.4th 887, 891 (1st Cir. 2024) (citations omitted).
Although claim preclusion is an affirmative defense to be pleaded in a
defendant's answer, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c), “[e]ven without a motion, ‘a
court on notice that it has previously decided an issue may dismiss the action
sua sponte, consistent with the res judicata policy of avoiding judicial
waste.’” In re Colonial Mortgage Bankers Corp., 324 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir.
2003) (citing Bezanson v. Bayside Enterps., Inc., In re Medomak, 922 F.2d
895, 904 (1st Cir.1990)).
Here, the elements of claim preclusion are satisfied. Because Fravien’s
present claims arise out of the same transactions and occurrences that were
1 “Res judicata” is sometimes used to refer to both issue preclusion
and claim preclusion. Brownback v. King, 592 U.S. 209, 215 n.3 (2021).
Case 1:25-cv-13208-RGS Document 4 Filed 03/21/26 Page 3 of 4

4
the subject of her earlier action in this court, these claims are barred by the
doctrine of claim preclusion.
Although the court generally grants a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to
amend a complaint to cure its defects, leave to amend is not required where
it would be futile. See Glassman v. Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623
(1st Cir. 1996) (explaining that futility means that “the complaint, as
amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted”).
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered that:
1. 	The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 2)
is ALLOWED.
2. 	This 	action 	is 	DISMISSED 	pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
3. 	The Clerk shall enter a separate order of dismissal.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns__________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-13208-RGS Document 4 Filed 03/21/26 Page 4 of 4