# Gennero Galtieri v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, John Matera v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · October 23, 1978 · 582 F.2d 348

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9465064

## Case

- **Full name:** Gennero GALTIERI, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent-Appellant; John MATERA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 23, 1978
- **Citations:** 582 F.2d 348
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Thornberry
- **Judges:** Brown, Tuttle, Thornberry, Coleman, Goldberg, Ainsworth, Godbold, Morgan, Clark, Roney, Gee, Tjoflat, Hill, Fay
- **Cited by:** 182 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9465064

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting, in a pre-AED-PA case, that exhaustion is not required where “the state procedures do not afford swift vindication” or “state procedural snarls or obstacles preclude an effective state remedy”

## Opinion text

THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge,
with whom GODBOLD, Circuit Judge, joins, dissenting:
I fully join in Judge Roney’s dissenting opinion but write separately — and briefly— to emphasize in the strongest terms my disagreement with a per se rule for the district courts. I find it deplorable that this court would fashion a dual system of judicial decision-making in the “mixed petition” context. I certainly agree that, on appeal, we can consider the merits of an exhausted claim, but I cannot subscribe to the shackling of our brethren on the district bench with a rigid standard that, in the name of an illusory state-federal comity, proclaims them less competent than ourselves to exercise sound discretion in these matters.
Today’s decision also limits our review of the merits of exhausted claims, for a mixed petition case decided on the merits of a properly exhausted claim will not reach us unless the district court has either ignored the per se rule or overlooked the presence of an unexhausted claim. Petitioners with meritorious — and exhausted — claims will thus remain unconstitutionally restrained pending a potentially lengthy exhaustion process with regard to other unexhausted-— and perhaps unrelated — claims. I cannot countenance a rule that ties the hands of the district courts and, indirectly, of this court in dealing with violations of fundamental rights.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9465064. Public record. Not legal advice.