PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, SANCTIONS, AND SUPERVISORY RELIEF

COMES NOW the Petitioner, Thomas D. Coates (“Petitioner”), pro se, and for his Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief, Sanctions, and Supervisory Relief against Rose Hall Apartments LLC (also known as Rose Hall Village Associates) and associated officials and entities (collectively, “Respondents”), alleges as follows:

A. Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue

1. Petitioner is an adult resident of the City of Virginia Beach, formerly residing at 3416 Warren Place, Apartment 201, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452. Petitioner appeared pro se in the underlying unlawful detainer proceedings in the Virginia Beach General District Court, including case GV25037264‑00.[cite:59][cite:29]

2. Respondent Rose Hall Apartments LLC, also known as Rose Hall Village Associates (“Rose Hall”), is a Virginia landlord entity that owns and operates the residential premises where Petitioner resided. Rose Hall initiated multiple unlawful detainer actions against Petitioner in 2025.[cite:29]

3. Other Respondents include, to the extent appropriate, officials and entities responsible for the operation and oversight of the Virginia Beach General District Court and related enforcement mechanisms, including but not limited to clerk’s office personnel and sheriff’s civil process/enforcement functions, insofar as they participated in or are necessary parties to the judgment–writ–eviction sequence described herein.[cite:29]

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this Petition pursuant to Va. Code § 8.01‑184 and related provisions governing declaratory judgments, the Court’s equitable powers to issue injunctive relief, its authority to impose sanctions under Va. Code § 8.01‑271.1, and its inherent and statutory supervisory authority over inferior courts and the ministerial operation of their dockets, records, and enforcement workflow.[web:84][web:87][cite:29]

5. Venue is proper in this Court because the underlying unlawful detainer proceedings, the premises, the writ issuance, and the sheriff’s execution all occurred in the City of Virginia Beach, and the parties and records at issue are located within this Circuit.[cite:29][cite:59]

B. Prior Unlawful Detainer Proceedings and October–November 2025 Judgments

6. In 2025, Rose Hall initiated multiple unlawful detainer actions against Petitioner in the Virginia Beach General District Court, including case numbers GV25031521‑00, GV25031898‑00, and GV25037264‑00.[cite:29]

7. On or about October 21, 2025, the General District Court held merits hearings at which Petitioner appeared pro se, asserted defenses under the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, and presented a counterclaim regarding Rose Hall’s billing practices, notice defects, and interference with lawful rent payment.[cite:63]

8. Following those hearings, the court adjudicated two matters in Petitioner’s favor as to lawful tenancy and entered a judgment on Petitioner’s counterclaim awarding monetary relief and confirming his continued right of occupancy. An Abstract of Judgment in Petitioner’s favor issued on or about November 6, 2025.[cite:29]

9. In the weeks immediately after judgment, Petitioner filed and served a Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs and related enforcement and preservation notices, while Rose Hall simultaneously issued new five‑day notices and other post‑judgment communications referencing charges that had already been adjudicated.[cite:29]

10. The General District Court docket reflects that Petitioner’s fee motion was carried and continued without a prompt, dedicated hearing date, even as new and conflicting notices and demands were being served.[cite:29]

11. On or about December 9, 2025, Petitioner submitted supplemental motions requesting sanctions, clarification of the effect of the prior judgments on Rose Hall’s subsequent notices, and a scheduled hearing on the still‑pending fee motion.[cite:29]

12. On December 12, 2025, the General District Court entered an order enjoining further unlawful detainer filings in GV25031521‑00 and GV25031898‑00, prohibiting Rose Hall from filing additional unlawful detainer actions involving the same premises while existing actions were still pending.[cite:29]

C. January 13, 2026 – Writs Issued Without Docketed Judgment Predicate

13. On January 13, 2026, at approximately 9:14 a.m., the Odyssey case‑management system recorded issuance of both a writ of possession and a writ of eviction in GV25037264‑00.[cite:29]

14. At the time those writs were generated, the Odyssey docket for GV25037264‑00 contained no judgment event, no disposition code, no judicial authorization object, and no appeal‑period trigger. The case status remained “Pending,” with a merits hearing scheduled for March 10, 2026, fifty‑six days in the future.[cite:29]

15. Certified docket extracts and Odyssey event timelines, later transmitted to oversight bodies as part of a 128‑row Forensic State Transition Matrix, show that enforcement events overtook adjudication: writs were issued and transmitted to the sheriff in the absence of any properly docketed judgment authorizing possession.[cite:29][cite:25]

16. Despite the December 12, 2025 order enjoining further unlawful detainer filings in related cases, writ‑level enforcement was generated and executed in GV25037264‑00 with no judgment for possession on the docket.[cite:29]

D. January 23, 2026 – Acceleration, Medical Continuance Request, and Denial

17. Before January 23, 2026, the merits hearing in GV25037264‑00 was accelerated by the clerk from March 10 to January 26, significantly shortening Petitioner’s effective preparation time.[cite:58][cite:63]

18. On January 23, 2026, while experiencing serious cardiac‑related medical symptoms, Petitioner filed an Emergency Motion for Continuance, Conditional Dismissal, and Verified Discovery, supported by medical information, asking that the January 26 accelerated hearing be continued for good‑cause medical reasons.[cite:62][cite:63]

19. That motion was accepted for filing and date‑stamped, but Petitioner’s request for continuance was later denied by the judge, as reflected in a document bearing the judge’s initials denying continuance of Petitioner’s medical request for good cause; Petitioner retains a copy of that document.[cite:2][cite:62]

20. As a result, the January 26 accelerated hearing remained in place despite Petitioner’s documented health issues and despite the prior continuance and scheduling latitude afforded to the landlord.[cite:63]

E. Motion to Quash and Execution of Writ on February 4, 2026

21. On January 22, 2026, Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash and Vacate Writ of Eviction in GV25037264‑00, expressly raising the absence of a final judgment for possession and the procedural defects in the writ‑issuance sequence.[cite:29]

22. The Motion to Quash was filed and docketed, but no ruling, stay, or suspension of the writ was recorded in Odyssey prior to execution.[cite:29]

23. On or about February 4, 2026, between approximately 8:30 a.m. and 9:10 a.m., a sheriff’s deputy executed the writ of eviction, and Petitioner was physically removed from 3416 Warren Place, Apartment 201, Virginia Beach, Virginia.[cite:59][cite:29]

24. Sheriff’s paperwork and the writ posted on Petitioner’s door, which he photographed and retains as evidence, reflect the execution of the eviction; those documents are available as separate exhibits.[cite:2][cite:59]

25. The eviction was executed thirty‑four days before the scheduled March 10, 2026 merits hearing, meaning enforcement preceded adjudication by more than a month in GV25037264‑00.[cite:29]

26. After the eviction, when Petitioner returned to the property on February 5, 2026 during the court‑allowed collection window, he found the door unlocked and his belongings in disarray; he documented this condition by photographs and notes, which he also retains.[cite:59]

F. Forensic Audit, Circuit Court Attempts, and Need for Relief

27. On February 12, 2026, Petitioner submitted a forensic audit packet to the Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission, the Virginia State Inspector General, and selected media outlets, including a 128‑row Forensic State Transition Matrix (Exhibit A‑1), a Mandamus Control Map, and a 64‑step Odyssey Audit Checklist, along with certified copies of writs, orders, and the Motion to Quash.[cite:29][cite:25]

28. Between September 24, 2025 and February 17, 2026, Petitioner made repeated good‑faith attempts to file Circuit Court petitions and motions seeking declaratory, injunctive, sanctions, and supervisory relief concerning the unlawful detainer proceedings and the enforcement‑without‑judgment sequence, but multiple e‑filing envelopes were rejected for shifting and often inconsistent reasons.[cite:29]

29. Petitioner consistently tendered signed, captioned pleadings with numbered paragraphs and specific prayers for relief, selected “Declaratory Judgment – No Monetary Damages” as the civil case type when required by eFileVA, and attempted to comply with the clerk’s evolving instructions, yet never obtained a docketed Circuit Court case or judicial review on the merits.[cite:29]

30. Petitioner has incurred more than $400.00 in filing‑related costs, including repeated payment of filing fees and associated service or transmission expenses, without meaningful access to the Circuit Court’s adjudicative function.[cite:29]

31. Exhibits A (Declaration and Timeline Regarding Judgment–Writ–Eviction Sequence) and A‑1 (State Transition Matrix – GV25037264‑00 Selected Events) are incorporated herein by reference in support of the factual allegations and requested relief.[cite:29][cite:61]

Count I – Declaratory Judgment

32. An actual controversy exists regarding the legality and effect of the January 13, 2026 writ‑issuance sequence in GV25037264‑00 in the absence of a docketed judgment for possession, and regarding the lawfulness of enforcing a writ of eviction before adjudication and expiration of any appeal period.[web:84][web:74][cite:29]

33. Petitioner seeks a declaration that the writs of possession and eviction issued on January 13, 2026 in GV25037264‑00 were void or voidable for want of a properly entered judgment predicate, and that enforcement of those writs constituted enforcement‑without‑judgment inconsistent with Virginia law and basic due process principles.[web:74][cite:29]

Count II – Injunctive Relief

34. Petitioner requests prospective injunctive relief directing that no further use or reliance be placed on the defective writs or any derivative enforcement actions in GV25037264‑00, and that Respondents take reasonable steps to correct and annotate the record so that future courts, agencies, and credit‑reporting entities are not misled by an enforcement‑without‑judgment sequence.[cite:29]

Count III – Sanctions (Va. Code § 8.01‑271.1)

35. Petitioner seeks sanctions under Va. Code § 8.01‑271.1 as to any attorney or party who advocated or relied upon the defective writs or opposed reasonable corrective measures after being placed on notice, if the Court finds that such conduct was not grounded in fact or law and unreasonably multiplied the proceedings or harms.[web:74][cite:29]

Count IV – Supervisory Relief

36. Petitioner requests narrowly tailored supervisory relief directing ministerial correction and preservation of the Odyssey docket and associated records in GV25037264‑00 (and any directly related case) to ensure that: (a) writ issuance is properly tied to docketed judgments for possession; (b) enforcement events do not precede adjudication; and (c) Petitioner’s filings, motions, and granted/denied continuances are accurately reflected.[cite:29][cite:61]

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays that this Court:

(a) Declare that the writs of possession and eviction issued on January 13, 2026 in GV25037264‑00 were void or voidable for lack of a properly entered judgment predicate, and that the February 4, 2026 eviction constituted enforcement‑without‑judgment;

(b) Issue appropriate injunctive relief to prevent further reliance on the defective writs or their consequences and to ensure accurate correction and annotation of the court record;

(c) Consider and, if warranted, impose sanctions under Va. Code § 8.01‑271.1 as to any attorney or party whose conduct in connection with the writs and subsequent enforcement was not grounded in fact or law;

(d) Exercise its supervisory authority to direct ministerial correction and preservation of the Odyssey docket and related records, consistent with the Forensic State Transition Matrix attached as Exhibit A‑1;

(e) Award Petitioner his costs associated with this Petition, including any fees or expenditures reasonably incurred in pursuing corrective relief; and

(f) Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Verification

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Dated: 2/20/2026

Signature Block

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: 2/20/2026