MacFarland v. Hill
- Virginia Demarchi
- 4:25-cv-05097
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
MacFarland v. Hill: Judge Tigar ordered attorney Zivot to explain her absence from a conference and set a hearing on possible sanctions.
Attorney Tamara Zivot, who remained counsel for Christopher MacFarland, must respond to the order to show cause and attend the scheduled hearing; MacFarland's habeas claims were not decided.
What happened
In Christopher Michael MacFarland v. James Hill, MacFarland filed a habeas case with attorneys Michael Hayden and Tamara Zivot representing him. The court allowed Hayden to withdraw because his employment with Unite the People had ended, while Zivot remained counsel.
Zivot did not attend two scheduled case management conferences, including one on November 18, 2025. The court had sent her notice of the later conference using updated mailing and email addresses.
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered Zivot to show why sanctions should not be imposed for missing the November 18 conference. Her written response is due December 11, 2025, and the court set a hearing for January 20, 2026.
The detailed version
- MacFarland v. Hill · No. 4:25-cv-05097
- Virginia Demarchi
- Nov. 20, 2025
Background
Christopher MacFarland filed this habeas action on June 12, 2025. Michael Hayden and Tamara Zivot, attorneys for Unite the People, represented him. Hayden later moved to withdraw, stating that his employment with Unite the People had ended. The court granted that request because it understood that Zivot continued to represent MacFarland.
Zivot did not appear at a case management conference on September 23, 2025. Before granting Hayden's withdrawal request, the court updated Zivot's mailing and email addresses using publicly available information. The withdrawal motion, which was sent to her at those addresses, stated that the court expected her to attend another case management conference on November 18, 2025. Zivot did not attend that conference either.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause, meaning it required Zivot to explain why sanctions should not be imposed for failing to appear at the November 18 conference. The order cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1)(A), which permits sanctions for certain failures to participate in case-management proceedings. Zivot's written response is due December 11, 2025. The court scheduled a hearing on the order to show cause for January 20, 2026, at 2:00 p.m.
The opinion does not decide the merits of MacFarland's habeas claims or impose sanctions in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.