2012-06-29_Scott_Andrews_Claudia_Rohr_v_County_of_Hawaii_Order_Granting_Defendants'_Motion_to_Dismiss

Home

Case 1:10-cv-00749-DAE-KSC Document 78 Filed 06/29/12 Page 15 of 31 PagelD #: 601 require information that Plaintiffs assert they did not have prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs do not show that they were lulled into inaction or were prevented from filing a complaint asserting the causes of action pled in the SAC. A. Discovery Rule Plaintiffs state in their Opposition that the "first cause of action may be tolled under Hawaii's discovery rule because there were hidden and latent injury [sic] that took time to discover." (Opp'n at 3.) Plaintiffs appear to refer to Andrews alleged fainting episodes in January and April 2009 as a result of the conditions of his confinement. (Id. at 4.) This allegation is not included in the SAC; however, even if it was, it would not prevent Plaintiffs' first cause of action from being time-barred. Plaintiffs' first cause of action in their SAC is labeled: "Fourteenth Amendment Right—Special Duty to Provide Medical Care to Detainees and Negligence Under State Law Claim." (SAC at 24.) The Court liberally construes Plaintiffs' first cause of action as alleging both a § 1983 claim and a negligence claim. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a pretrial detainee the right to receive adequate medical care, and that right is violated if 15