Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 26, 2025

Horton v. Superintendent Mark Miller

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-09876
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Anthony Horton v. Superintendent Mark Miller, Judge Swain ordered Horton to correct his prisoner authorization or pay filing fees.

Who this affects

Anthony Horton, an incarcerated plaintiff representing himself, and the further processing of his action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

What happened

Anthony Horton, who is incarcerated and representing himself, submitted an application to proceed without paying fees upfront and a prisoner authorization in Anthony Horton v. Superintendent Mark Miller. The court found that the authorization was handwritten and did not state how much money should be deducted from his prison account.

The court gave Horton 30 days to either pay $405 in fees or submit the attached, completed prisoner authorization labeled with case number 25-CV-9876. No summons will issue yet. If Horton does not comply within the deadline, the action will be dismissed.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Horton v. Superintendent Mark Miller · No. 1:25-cv-09876
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Nov. 26, 2025

Background

Anthony Horton, who is incarcerated at Upstate Correctional Facility, brought this action without a lawyer. To proceed without prepaying court fees, a prisoner must submit an application to proceed without prepayment and a prisoner authorization. The authorization allows the facility to deduct the filing fee from the prisoner’s account in installments and requires certified account statements for the previous six months to be sent to the court.

Horton submitted both documents, but the court found that his prisoner authorization was handwritten and did not specify the amount to be deducted from his account.

Order

The court ordered Horton, within 30 days of the order, to do one of two things: pay $405 in fees, or complete and submit the attached prisoner authorization labeled with docket number 25-CV-9876. The order states that the $405 consists of a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee, while a footnote refers to a $52 administrative fee and states that the administrative fee does not apply to people granted permission to proceed without prepayment. The court did not issue a summons at this time.

If Horton complies, the case will be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures. If he does not comply within the allowed time, the action will be dismissed. The order also cautions that a later dismissal as frivolous or for failing to state a claim could count as a strike under the prisoner litigation statute.

Appeal and Effect

Judge Laura Taylor Swain certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. This order addressed filing-fee and authorization requirements; it did not decide the merits of Horton’s claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.