A federal judge in San Francisco drastically limited the scope of a lawsuit last week filed by a San Francisco nonprofit and several individuals against the city and county, seeking to prevent the clearing of homeless encampments. 

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Donna Ryu ruled that the seven individual plaintiffs who brought the suit, along with the nonprofit organization Coalition on Homelessness, lacked standing for several of their claims. 

Some of their other claims were dismissed by Ryu in accordance with a ruling in July by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson. That ruling rejected claims that enforcing public camping bans amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, which is banned under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

Tenderloin-based Coalition on Homelessness filed the suit in September 2022, claiming the displacement of people through citations, arrests, and forcing them to move was a violation of both the state and federal constitutional bans on cruel and unusual punishment. It further alleged that the seizure of people’s property amounted to unreasonable search and seizure, which is banned under the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment. 

Ryu’s ruling preserved the claims brought on Fourth Amendment grounds, which had also been supported by a previous injunction preventing the seizure of people’s property without storing it. Ryu also preserved the ability for the plaintiffs to refile the case focusing on their claims under the state Constitution. 

The suit brought 13 claims. Four were dismissed because of the Grants Pass ruling, two of which could potentially be refiled under claims of violation of state law, but not federal law. Several other claims were dismissed in part, with Ryu ruling some of the plaintiffs had not shown that they were impacted, or injured, and therefore had no standing. 

Some of the standing claims could be refiled in an amended complaint, according to Ryu’s ruling. 

San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu said in a statement that he was thankful for the decision. He said that the individual plaintiffs in the suit had been housed for “most of this lawsuit.” 

“These folks were not harmed by the City, and the risk of future harm is extremely remote since there are no time restrictions on their housing placements. We appreciate the Court’s order today that will hopefully move us all closer to a resolution of this case,” Chiu said. 

The Coalition on Homelessness referred questions to the ACLU’s legal counsel, which is representing the organization in its suit. The ACLU did not respond to a request for comment by press time on Friday night. 

The plaintiffs have until Dec. 18 to file an amended complaint.