Tory v. United States District Court
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James R. Spencer on 10/10/14. (khan, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
MICHAEL E. TORY, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:12 CV905
R.C. METHENA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner, a Virginia inmate proceeding prose, has submitted a "MOTION
REQUESTING AN AUTHORIZATION 0[R]DER TO FILE A SECOND WRIT OF H/vBEAS
CORPUS." (ECF No. 1.) It appeared that Petitioner intended the Motion to challenge hs
conviction in the CircuitCourt for the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. By Memorandum Order
entered on April 3, 2013, the Court informed Petitioner that if he wished to file a 28 U.S C.
§ 2254 petition, he should complete the appropriate forms for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition
and return the same to the Court. (ECF No. 2, at 1-2.)1 Thereafter, Petitioner completed and
returned the forms for filing a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his convictions in the
Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach for aggravated malicious wounding and use of a
firearm in the commission of a felony. (ECF No. 3.) By Memorandum Opinion and Older
entered on October 22,2013, the Court denied the § 2254 Petition. Tory v. Methena,
No. 3:12CV905, 2013 WL 5739790, at *1-4 (E.D. Va. Oct. 22, 2013). The Court founl the
relevant statute of limitations barred the action. Id. at *3-4. On January 28, 2014, the United
1The Court further informed Petitioner that if he wished to continue with the action in its
current form, within twenty (20) days of the date of entry thereof, he must identify the utatute
that authorizes the present action.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?