became “grossly swollen” and “painful,” with deep cuts appearing “around both wrists where the handcuffs were embedded into his flesh.” He further alleged that he has permanent scarring and “now suffers from nerve injury ... caused by the long-term wearing of over-tight handcuffs and the black box.” The district court erred in holding that Dominguez must show that he suffered a significant injury in order to proceed on his IFP complaint. See id. (recognizing that injury is no longer required to be significant in the context of an excessive force claim). 4. Dominguez’s medical records were improperly used at the Spears hearing to counter his injury allegations because the records did not show those allegations to be implausible. See Williams v. Luna, 909 F.2d 121, 124 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). 5. Dominguez’s complaint alleged that the
holding that to the extent medical records may be properly categorized as business records such records are properly categorized as nontestimonial holding prisoners had no clearly established right to privacy in medical records in 1995 holding that records relating to a student court were not education records holding that seventeen missing records does not constitute improper record keeping because the fact that the records are not at the station does not mean that the records are incorrect or inaccurate holding that reliance on a prisoners medical records to refute his testimony is improper unless such records indicate his allegations of injury are inherently implausible