Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:10-cv-00749-DAE-KSC Document 78 Filed 06/29/12 Page 16 of 31 PagelD #: <br /> 602 <br /> officials are deliberately indifferent to the detainee's serious medical needs. <br /> Clouthier v. Cnty. of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1242-43 (9th Cir. 2010). <br /> The Hawaii state discovery rule provides that "under the statute of <br /> limitations currently codified in HRS § 657-7, a cause of action does not `accrue' <br /> and the limitations period does not begin to run, until the plaintiff knew or should <br /> have known of the defendant's negligence." Hays v. City and County of Honolulu, <br /> 917 P.2d 718, 720 (Haw. 1996). First, the discovery rule does not apply to <br /> Plaintiffs' § 1983 claim. As discussed above, when a § 1983 claim accrues is a <br /> question of federal law, not state law. Wallace, 549 U.S. at 384 ("[T]he accrual <br /> date of a § 1983 cause of action is a question of federal law that is not resolved by <br /> reference to state law.") In any event, Hawaii's "discovery rule," which would <br /> apply to a state negligence claim, is nearly identical to the federal test for <br /> determining when a cause of action accrues. See Lukovsky, 535 F.3d at 1051 <br /> (noting "a claim accrues under federal law when the plaintiff knows or has reason <br /> to know of the actual injury"). <br /> Here, Plaintiffs allege that on December 12, 2008, police arrested <br /> Andrews from his hospital bed, disrupted his medical treatment, and took him to <br /> the Hilo holding cell and did not respond to his repeated statements that he thought <br /> he was about to have a heart attack. (SAC ¶¶ 71, 74.) Plaintiffs allege that "most <br /> 16 <br />