Schuttpelz v. USA

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL L. SCHUTTPELZ,
#41686-039,
Plaintiff,
vs.
USA,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 25-cv-01815-JPG
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
Plaintiff Michael L. Schuttpelz, an inmate in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) and
incarcerated at the Loretto Federal Correctional Institution (FCI-Loretto), brings this action against
the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-80.1 He
seeks compensation for personal property lost during his transfer from the United States
Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois (USP-Marion) on October 26, 2022.
The Complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court
to review prisoner complaints and filter out portions that are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to
state a claim for relief, or request money damages from an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915A(a)-(b). At this juncture, the factual allegations are liberally construed. Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
1 Plaintiff filed 3 civil suits in this District to address claims arising out of his transfer from USP-Marion in
2022, and the Court refers to this case as “Schuttpelz 1.” See Schuttpelz v. United States, No. 25-cv-01846-
JPG (S.D. Ill. filed Sept. 30, 2025) (referred to as “Schuttpelz 2”); Schuttpelz v. United States, et al., No. 25-
cv-01847-JPG (S.D. Ill. filed Sept. 30, 2025) (referred to as “Schuttpelz 3”).
Case 3:25-cv-01815-JPG Document 10 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
The Complaint
The Complaint sets forth the following allegations (Doc. 1, pp. 1-27): Plaintiff claims that
prison officials failed to pack up and move all personal property when transferring him into USP-
Marion’s Special Housing Unit (SHU) on August 10, 2022 and when transferring him to another
federal facility on October 26, 2022. Id.
Plaintiff was ordered to sign a property transfer form before seeing his property on
August 10, 2022. He refused to do so until an officer agreed to look through his belongings and
describe what was there. Once the officer did so, Plaintiff signed the property transfer form. Id.
Plaintiff was given another form to sign on October 25, 2022. He noticed that this property
transfer form was shorter than the last, so he refused to sign it. Prison officials then removed
several large trash bags of his personal property. The following day, October 26, 2022, Plaintiff
transferred to the Oklahoma City Transfer Facility. He then moved to the Federal Correctional
Institution in Gilmer, West Virginia, on November 9, 2022. Id.
Plaintiff was finally allowed access to his personal property on November 28, 2022. When
he looked through it, Plaintiff realized that several items were missing. He was most concerned
about several missing volumes of court transcripts. Plaintiff requested a tort claim form and did
not receive one, so he filed an Administrative Claim/Request directly with the FBOP in
Washington, DC. When he later determined the value of the lost transcripts to be $2,233.50, he
submitted a written request for compensation in this amount to the FBOP in Washington, DC.
Plaintiff filed this action on September 22, 2025. Id.
Case 3:25-cv-01815-JPG Document 10 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
Discussion
Based on the allegations, the Court designates the following claim in the pro se Complaint:
Count 1: 	FTCA claim against Defendant United States for USP-Marion staff’s loss
of Plaintiff’s personal property during his transfer to USP-Marion’s SHU
on or around August 10, 2022 and to another facility on October 26, 2022.
Any claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed herein is considered
dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly.2
The Federal Tort Claims Act authorizes “civil actions on claims against the United States,
for money damages . . . for injury or loss of property . . . caused by the negligent or wrongful act
or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or
employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to
the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”
28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). The FTCA waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for suits
alleging injury, including property loss, attributable to the negligence of federal employees acting
within the scope of their employment. See Abdulqader v. United States, 596 F. App’x 515, 516
(7th Cir. 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671-2680). However, in Ali v. Federal Bureau
of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (2008), the Supreme Court held that § 2680(c) excludes from this waiver
claims arising from the mishandling of detained property by prison guards. Id. at 216, 228. The
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has reached the same conclusion. See Abdulqader, 596 F. App’x
at 516. Both courts have held that sovereign immunity bars a prisoner’s claim for property loss,
including religious and legal property, that occurs during a prison transfer. Ali, 552 U.S. at 216-
17; Abdulqader, 596 F. App’x at 516. This Court is bound by these holdings.
2 See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (an action fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”).
Case 3:25-cv-01815-JPG Document 10 Filed 12/01/25 Page 3 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

4
The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars the claim for lost property attendant to Plaintiff’s
prison transfer, so Count 1 shall be dismissed with prejudice.3 The Complaint does not survive
screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. An amendment to the complaint would be futile under the
circumstances. Therefore, the dismissal of this action shall be with prejudice.
Disposition
IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure
to state a claim. Because no other claims remain pending, the entire action is DISMISSED with
prejudice. Plaintiff is ADVISED that this dismissal counts as one of his three allotted “strikes”
under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was incurred at the time the action
was filed, thus the filing fee of $350.00 remains due and payable. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien
v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998). If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, his
notice of appeal must be filed with this Court within sixty days of the entry of judgment. FED. R.
APP . P. 4(a)(1)(A). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set forth the issues
Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See FED. R. APP . P. 24(a)(1)(C). If Plaintiff does choose to
appeal, he will be liable for the $605.00 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the
appeal. See FED. R. APP . P. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Moreover, if the appeal is found to be
nonmeritorious, Plaintiff may also incur a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A proper and timely
motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may toll the 60-day appeal deadline.
FED. R. APP . P. 4(a)(4). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no more than twenty-eight (28) days
after the entry of the judgment, and this 28-day deadline cannot be extended.
3 Plaintiff’s claim may also be barred by the applicable statute of limitations or by his failure to exhaust his
federal tort remedies before bringing this FTCA action. Because Plaintiff’s underlying claim is subject to
dismissal for failure to state a claim for relief, however, the Court need not address the timeliness of his
claims or his exhaustion of remedies.
Case 3:25-cv-01815-JPG Document 10 Filed 12/01/25 Page 4 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

5
The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 12/1/2025 	s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01815-JPG Document 10 Filed 12/01/25 Page 5 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>