Court Opinion

ID: 9481348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:16:19.039026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:15.374831
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
April 10, 1991.
POLITZ, Circuit Judge:
The Attorney General of the State of Texas has moved for leave to file an ami-cus curiae petition for rehearing and a like motion to supplement the record on appeal. Because of the special considerations which exist in pro se prisoner civil rights complaints and Spears1 hearing appeals, we grant these motions. Having done so we have reconsidered the appeals in light of the supplemented record.
On the record as now supplemented, it is apparent that all witnesses were sworn at the beginning of the day’s series of Spears hearings conducted by the magistrate judge. Further, pursuant to an arrangement of long standing between the district court and the Attorney General’s office, the court was furnished with such medical and other prison records as were requested, for use by the complainants] and review by the court in its 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) determination about the viability of the complaint. Accordingly, the magistrate judge did not entertain the testimony of unsworn witnesses, nor did she consider records which were not adequately identified or authenticated. Our statement to the contrary in the opinion was incorrect and it is recalled.
We confirm and reinstate our prior opinion 926 F.2d 480, as it relates to the appropriate procedures to be followed in Spears hearings. We also reinstate our decision *484vacating and remanding Wilson’s complaint for consideration in light of our intervening decision in Huguet v. Barnett, 900 F.2d 838 (5th Cir.1990), in which we adopted for application in eighth amendment excessive force cases the standard the en banc court announced in Johnson v. Morel, 876 F.2d 477 (5th Cir.1989), for use in fourth amendment arrest cases. The magistrate judge rejected Wilson’s complaint applying pre-Huguet precedents. Finally, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of Huntsberry’s complaint as frivolous. The district court adopted that recommendation. We affirm that decision.
The dismissal of Huntsberry’s complaint is AFFIRMED.
The dismissal of Wilson’s complaint is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED for consideration in light of Huguet v. Barnett.
In all respects not inconsistent herewith, the original opinion is reinstated.

. Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir.1985).