Opinion ID: 71718
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Propriety of the Spears Hearing

Text: The district court instructed the magistrate judge to conduct a Spears hearing to consider Iruegas’s complaint. The magistrate judge acknowledged that 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2) instructs the court to dismiss any frivolous or malicious in forma pauperis claims, while § 1915A mandates screening all prisoner civil complaints that seek redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity. He thus found Iruegas’s civil rights action subject to both provisions. 2 Iruegas does not appeal the magistrate judge’s dismissal on this ground. 4 Case: 09-10471 Document: 00511058214 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/22/2010 No. 09-10471 On appeal, Iruegas admits that Spears hearings are designed to determine whether in forma pauperis complaints should be dismissed as frivolous. See, e.g., Moore v. Carwell, 168 F.3d 234, 235 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Spears, 766 F.2d 179. Iruegas cites no authority for the argument that his retention of counsel defeats the screening process necessitated by in forma pauperis complaints and statutorily-required for complaints by prisoners against government officials. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A. Having found none ourselves, we find that his argument lacks merit. Likewise, Iruegas’s argument that the magistrate judge erred by not swearing in witnesses, allowing cross-examination, or identifying and authenticating exhibits entirely lacks merit. Defendants did not introduce a single witness for cross-examination purposes, nor did they try to introduce a single exhibit. Instead, the magistrate judge heard testimony from Iruegas, and on the basis of his uncontested statement, found that Iruegas had failed to state any cognizable constitutional claim for deliberate indifference. We find no error in the way in which the magistrate judge conducted Iruegas’s Spears hearing.