Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Gary Rutledge v. Warden of Berkley County Detention Center
as 26-6900
Petitioner:
GARY TYRONE RUTLEDGE
Respondent:
WARDEN OF BERKLEY COUNTY DETENTION CENTER
Gary Rutledge v. Aaron Gauge
as 26-6901
Plaintiff:
GARY TYRONE RUTLEDGE
Defendant:
AARON GAUGE, Sinkler Bail Bondsman, Shelmore LLC and STACEY BEAM, Owner, Coastal Carolina Monitoring Service
Rutledge v. Wilson et al
as 2:2026cv03360
Plaintiff:
Gary Tyrone Rutledge
Defendant:
Scarlett Anne Wilson and Zachary Trump
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers
Rutledge v. Rozier et al
as 2:2026cv03249
Plaintiff:
Gary Tyrone Rutledge
Defendant:
James H Rozier, Judge R. S. Deaton, Whilden V Baggett and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers
Rutledge v. Guage et al
as 2:2026cv02693
Plaintiff:
Gary Tyrone Rutledge
Defendant:
Aaron Guage and Stacey Beam
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers
Rutledge v. Hill-Finklea Detention Center
as 8:2026cv02278
Petitioner:
Gary Tyrone Rutledge
Respondent:
Director Hill-Finklea Detention Center
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (County)
Rutledge v. Director Hill-Finklea Detention Center
as 8:2026cv01862
Petitioner:
Gary Tyrone Rutledge
Respondent:
Director Hill-Finklea Detention Center
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (County)
RUTLEDGE v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
as 1:2026cv01748
Plaintiff:
GARY TYRONE RUTLEDGE
Defendant:
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
RUTLEDGE v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
as 1:2026cv01749
Petitioner:
GARY TYRONE RUTLEDGE
Respondent:
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Rutledge v. State of South Carolina
as 8:2026cv01795
Petitioner:
Gary Tyrone Rutledge
Respondent:
Warden of Berkley County Detention Center
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (County)
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.
