Christopher Michael MacFarland v. James Hill

N.D. California

Christopher Michael MacFarland v. James Hill

DecidedNovember 20, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-05097

StatusUnknown

This text of Christopher Michael MacFarland v. James Hill (Christopher Michael MacFarland v. James Hill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Christopher Michael MacFarland v. James Hill, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL Case No. 25-cv-05097-JST MACFARLAND, 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. Re: ECF No. 18 10 JAMES HILL, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Petitioner Christopher MacFarland filed this habeas action on June 12, 2025. ECF No. 1. 14 He was represented by Michael Hayden and Tamara Zivot, attorneys for Unite the People, an 15 organization based in Long Beach. Id. On August 23, 2025, Attorney Michael Hayden moved to 16 withdraw as counsel, explaining that his employment with Unite the People had terminated. ECF 17 No. 9 at 1. The motion indicated that MacFarland did not oppose Hayden’s withdrawal. Id. at 2. 18 The Court granted Hayden’s request, reasoning that MacFarland remained represented by 19 Attorney Zivot. ECF No. 17 at 2. 20 Attorney Zivot did not appear at the case management conference held on September 23, 21 2025. ECF No. 15. Before the Court granted Hayden’s motion to withdraw, it updated Zivot’s 22 mailing address to match the address listed on the California State Bar website. It also updated 23 her email address to one publicly available on the internet. The motion to withdraw, which was 24 mailed and emailed to Zivot at those addresses, indicated that the Court expected her to appear at 25 an additional case management conference scheduled for November 18, 2025. ECF No. 17 at 2. 26 Although Zivot remains listed on the docket and continues to represent MacFarland, she did not 27 appear at that case management conference. ECF No. 18. 1 should not be imposed against her for her failure to appear at the case management conference 2 held on November 18, 2025. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(A); see Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. 3 Queen’s Med. Ctr., 47 F. Supp. 3d 1069, 1079 (D. Haw. 2014) (district court may impose 4 sanctions for deliberate violation of court order), aff'd, 810 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 2015). A written 5 response to this order is due December 11, 2025. The Court will conduct a hearing on the order to 6 show cause on January 20, 2026 at 2 p.m. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. ® 8 Dated: November 20, 2025 9 JON S. TIGA 10 nited States District Judge 11 a 12

13 14 © 15 16

= 17 6 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL Case No. 25-cv-05097-JST MACFARLAND, 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. Re: ECF No. 18 10 JAMES HILL, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Petitioner Christopher MacFarland filed this habeas action on June 12, 2025. ECF No. 1. 14 He was represented by Michael Hayden and Tamara Zivot, attorneys for Unite the People, an 15 organization based in Long Beach. Id. On August 23, 2025, Attorney Michael Hayden moved to 16 withdraw as counsel, explaining that his employment with Unite the People had terminated. ECF 17 No. 9 at 1. The motion indicated that MacFarland did not oppose Hayden’s withdrawal. Id. at 2. 18 The Court granted Hayden’s request, reasoning that MacFarland remained represented by 19 Attorney Zivot. ECF No. 17 at 2. 20 Attorney Zivot did not appear at the case management conference held on September 23, 21 2025. ECF No. 15. Before the Court granted Hayden’s motion to withdraw, it updated Zivot’s 22 mailing address to match the address listed on the California State Bar website. It also updated 23 her email address to one publicly available on the internet. The motion to withdraw, which was 24 mailed and emailed to Zivot at those addresses, indicated that the Court expected her to appear at 25 an additional case management conference scheduled for November 18, 2025. ECF No. 17 at 2. 26 Although Zivot remains listed on the docket and continues to represent MacFarland, she did not 27 appear at that case management conference. ECF No. 18. 1 should not be imposed against her for her failure to appear at the case management conference 2 held on November 18, 2025. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(A); see Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. 3 Queen’s Med. Ctr., 47 F. Supp. 3d 1069, 1079 (D. Haw. 2014) (district court may impose 4 sanctions for deliberate violation of court order), aff'd, 810 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 2015). A written 5 response to this order is due December 11, 2025. The Court will conduct a hearing on the order to 6 show cause on January 20, 2026 at 2 p.m. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. ® 8 Dated: November 20, 2025 9 JON S. TIGA 10 nited States District Judge 11 a 12

13 14 © 15 16

= 17 6 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Christopher Michael MacFarland v. James Hill, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-michael-macfarland-v-james-hill-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack