David Richard Vigil Jr. v. Cynthia Rojas
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:26-cv-04357
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Vigil v. Rojas, Judge Seeborg allowed the federal petition challenging state convictions to proceed, granted fee-free filing, and ordered a response.
David Richard Vigil Jr. may continue litigating his federal challenge to his California convictions without paying filing fees at this stage. Cynthia Rojas is the sole respondent and must respond or file a procedural motion by January 25, 2027.
What happened
David Richard Vigil Jr. v. Cynthia Rojas concerns Vigil’s federal petition challenging his California state convictions. The opinion says a jury convicted him in 2022, but an appellate court later reversed two convictions and sent the case back for resentencing on the murder conviction.
Vigil raised claims about self-defense instructions, the evidence of malice, an alleged inadvertent shooting, and the performance of his trial and appellate lawyers. The court found the claims sufficient to continue under the initial review required for these petitions.
Judge Richard Seeborg ordered Cynthia Rojas, identified as the warden and sole proper respondent, to respond by January 25, 2027. The court granted Vigil permission to proceed without paying filing fees and terminated all pending motions; it did not decide whether his claims ultimately succeed.
The detailed version
- David Richard Vigil Jr. v. Cynthia Rojas · No. 3:26-cv-04357
- Richard Seeborg
- Sept. 10, 2026
Background
David Richard Vigil Jr. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal procedure for challenging custody resulting from a state-court conviction. The petition challenges convictions arising from a 2022 Alameda County Superior Court jury verdict for voluntary manslaughter, second-degree murder, and shooting at an occupied vehicle, along with sentencing enhancements. The opinion states that the sentence was 30 years to life.
A state appellate court later reversed the voluntary-manslaughter and shooting-at-an-occupied-vehicle convictions and sent the case back to the superior court for resentencing on the murder conviction and consideration of the court’s discretion under California law.
Claims and Initial Review
The court reviewed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Vigil claims that:
- the jury received constitutionally incorrect self-defense instructions;
- the evidence was insufficient to establish malice;
- the state court’s conclusion that the record contained no evidence of an inadvertent shooting was contradicted by the record;
- trial counsel provided ineffective assistance; and
- appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance.
The court concluded that, when read liberally, these claims are legally cognizable and may proceed. This was an initial screening decision, not a ruling on whether Vigil will win the case.
Rulings and Next Steps
The court ordered Cynthia Rojas, identified as the warden of the facility where Vigil is housed, to be the sole respondent. The court explained that she is the custodian with day-to-day control over Vigil. The Clerk was instructed to amend the docket accordingly.
The court ordered the respondent to file an answer showing why the requested relief should not be granted by January 25, 2027, and to provide relevant portions of the transcribed state trial record. Instead of an answer, the respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds by that date. Vigil may respond within the periods stated in the order.
The court granted Vigil’s motions to proceed without paying filing fees and instructed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions. The court also advised Vigil about serving filings, keeping the court informed of address changes, prosecuting the case, and meeting deadlines. Judge Richard Seeborg signed the order. The opinion does not resolve the merits of any of Vigil’s five claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.