Horton v. Ashong
- Philip Halpern
- 7:25-cv-06315
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Horton v. Ashong, Judge Halpern ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Horton’s complaint on six defendants.
Anthony Horton; the six defendants ordered served—Mary Ashong, Dr. Mark Stillman, Billie Tuohy, Susanna Nayschuler, Carol Moores, and John Serhan; the Clerk of Court; and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Anthony Horton v. Mary Ashong, et al., Anthony Horton, who is incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility and is representing himself, alleges that the defendants failed to provide constitutionally adequate medical care. The court also understood his complaint to assert claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The court had previously allowed Horton to proceed without paying court fees in advance. It therefore directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, prepare service forms, and send the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service so the Marshals could serve Mary Ashong, Dr. Mark Stillman, Billie Tuohy, Susanna Nayschuler, Carol Moores, and John Serhan. The court stated that service should occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued and that Horton should request more time if service is not completed.
On October 29, 2025, Judge Philip M. Halpern entered the order of service. The order did not decide whether Horton’s medical-care or disability claims have merit. It also directed Horton to notify the court in writing if his address changes and directed the Clerk to mail him an information package.
The detailed version
- Horton v. Ashong · No. 7:25-cv-06315
- Philip Halpern
- Oct. 29, 2025
Background
Anthony Horton, who is incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility and is proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants failed to provide constitutionally adequate medical care. The court construed the complaint as also asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The court had previously granted Horton permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
Service of process
Because Horton was allowed to proceed without advance payment of fees, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. Service of process is the formal delivery of the summons and complaint notifying defendants of the lawsuit.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each of these defendants: Mary Ashong, Dr. Mark Stillman, Billie Tuohy, Susanna Nayschuler, Carol A. Moores, and John Serhan. The Clerk was also directed to issue summonses and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service. The order states that Horton should request an extension of time if the complaint is not served within 90 days after the summonses are issued.
Disposition
The court entered an order of service. It directed the Clerk to complete the service forms with the defendants’ addresses, issue the summonses, and provide the documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. It also directed the Clerk to mail Horton an information package. The opinion does not resolve the merits of Horton’s medical-care or disability claims. Judge Philip M. Halpern further stated that Horton must notify the court in writing if his address changes and that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.