The owner of a yoga studio in Pacifica is asking a federal court to declare California's coronavirus "shelter-in-place" orders unconstitutional, claiming he can no longer afford medications following the closure of his business.

The complaint for injunctive relief, filed by Becker Law Practice on Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is the latest to challenge the constitutionality of orders requiring residents to stay at home and close up nonessential businesses in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pacifica Beach Yoga's Thomas Antoon alleges that the orders violate his First, Fourth, Fifth Eighth and 14th Amendment rights and names several state and local officials as defendants, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, who issued the orders, and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

"To put a person in a choice between risking incarceration for months or forcing one into unemployment which risks permitting one's family into eviction and homelessness and inability to afford life-saving medication; Such is an arbitrary punishment that is wholly unreasonable and indeed cruel," wrote Matthew Becker of the Becker Law Practice in Sacramento. "Never before in the history of California has an entire class of persons been subjected to this choice with an indefinite and ever-delayed period of forcing such decisions on anyone as has been forced on plaintiff."

The rules are also unusual, because "large corporations" such as Walmart, Costco and Home Depot are arbitrarily exempt, Becker contends.

The lawsuit asserts that the orders amount to a "collective seizure of the liberty of movement of the entire population of California," but also an unreasonable seizure of property.

"This designation of non-essential status means that Plaintiff's business location has essentially been seized by defendants without individualized suspicion of anything other than practicing a trade deemed by defendants to be non-essential," the complaint states.

Antoon, who claims he could institute new policies to ensure his customers comply with social distancing requirements, is seeking special and general damages for lost revenue as a result of the orders.

The suit follows similar actions on behalf of businesses deemed "nonessential" during the pandemic. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a similar case earlier this week brought by business owners in Pennsylvania. In April, Geragos & Geragos in Los Angeles and the Dhillon Law Group in San Francisco also filed suit for injunctive relief on behalf of a group of Southern California businesses, including restaurants, a company that handles lighting effects for Hollywood, and a mobile pet groomer.

Becker said he plans to file other suits on behalf of nonessential businesses, noting that about 90% of the flood of inquiries he's gotten have come from members of the cosmetology industry.

"There are far too few lawyers involved in this litigation right now," he said. The lack of interest could be a lack of profitability of the suits and the need to gain a solid understanding of epidemiology and Section 1983 litigation, or actions alleging a state actor wielded the legal system to violate constitutional rights, the solo practitioner said.

When he saw what he described as large-scale violations of civil liberties, he assumed the American Civil Liberties Union would act. When they didn't, Becker, who has a background in Section 1983 litigation, said he looked in the mirror and said,"If not me, then who?"

"The goal here is to get people back to work," he said.