![\"Eric](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/SAC_1363_PK_20250925_ERICGRANT.JPG\" "\\"Eric")
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Eric Grant, U.S. attorney in Sacramento, sits in his office at the Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse in 2025. Grant was appointed by President Donald Trump in August.<\/p>\n
PAUL KITAGAKI JR.<\/p>\n
pkitagaki@sacbee.com<\/p>\n
A federal judge in Sacramento on Friday removed his sanction against a prosecutor who missed multiple court-imposed deadlines in immigration cases, imposing the punishment instead on the local U.S. Attorney\u2019s Office as a whole.<\/p>\n
The new sanction ordered by U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley, chief judge of Sacramento\u2019s federal court, was an acknowledgement that the errors were part of a systemic problem<\/a>, caused by the crush of more than 3,000 cases challenging the detention of unauthorized immigrants being held in facilities in the Central Valley.<\/p>\n The cases have overwhelmed the Valley\u2019s federal court system<\/a>, which has only six judges to serve a region home to 8.5 million people that stretches from Bakersfield to the Oregon border. The U.S. Attorney\u2019s Office, which is responsible for defending the government, has had to bring on additional prosecutors to handle the work.<\/p>\n The cases are burdening the system because the federal judiciary is not typically the venue for immigration cases, which are heard in separate administrative courts run by the Department of Justice. But federal courts are the only venue for people who have been arrested by the U.S. government to challenge their detentions, and the Trump administration\u2019s policy of incarcerating immigrants rather than releasing them on a form of parole has punted thousands of cases into these already busy courts.<\/p>\n In a highly unusual pleading obtained by The Sacramento Bee in April, U.S. Attorney Eric Grant said the prosecutor, Jonathan Yu, was a hard worker who had been assigned more than 300 cases since joining his office\u2019s newly established immigration case unit. Grant asked Nunley to sanction his office instead \u2014 or himself personally.<\/p>\n \u201cHis failure to comply with the court\u2019s orders was not willful, but the result of a mistake,\u201d Grant said in his pleading. \u201cIt was the strain of the system that is not keeping up with the overwhelming burden.\u201d<\/p>\n On Friday, Nunley responded, removing the sanction against Yu and assessing it instead against Grant\u2019s office. He ordered the U.S. Attorney\u2019s Office to also pay the $250 fine associated with it.<\/p>\n \u201cIn the interest of addressing the root cause of the deficiencies, the court will direct that the sanction be imposed on the United States Attorney\u2019s Office,\u201d Nunley wrote in his order.<\/p>\n The sanction grew out of the case of Eblis Alexander Yanez Tovar, who was described in court documents as having entered the United States without authorization in 2023.<\/p>\n Tovar, who lived in Nevada and was the sole provider for his wife and four children, was pulled over in an undisclosed location for failing to appear in court for a traffic ticket, Nunley\u2019s original sanction order said. He was sent to a detention center in Kern County, and his lawyer filed a demand for his release, known as a habeas corpus petition, in federal court in Sacramento in March.<\/p>\n Nunley ordered Tovar\u2019s release on April 3 and ordered Yu to show proof that his ruling was carried out. Yu missed the deadline to file documents showing Tovar had been let go and later missed another deadline set by the judge for proof that the detainee\u2019s passport and driver\u2019s license had been returned to him. He also missed deadlines in other cases, Nunley said in his order filed Friday.<\/p>\n But while Nunley removed the sanction against Yu, he also issued a warning to the prosecutor. Future missteps, he said, would be viewed as deliberate, resulting in sanctions against both the office and the individual attorney.<\/p>\n \u201cCompliance with court orders is not optional and must be prioritized above competing demands and resources,\u201d Nunley wrote.<\/p>\n \u201cA pattern of unchecked and unaddressed mistakes in complying with court orders will be viewed as a deliberate and strategic choice.\u201d<\/p>\n This story was originally published May 1, 2026 at 12:04 PM.<\/p>\n Related Stories from Sacramento Bee<\/p>\n
![\"Profile](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Bernstein-photo.jpg\")