instruction:
In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
question:
statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276-79, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). Under Pennsylvania law, the statute of limitations for a personal injury action is two years, see 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 5524, and thus a two-year statute of limitations applies to this case. See Sameric Corp. of Del, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 142 F.3d 582, 599 (3d Cir.1998). The date when a Section 1983 action accrues, however, is a matter of federal law. Wallace v. Koto. 549 U.S. 384, 388, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007). A Section 1983 claim accrues “when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury upon which [his] action is based.” Sameric, 142 F.3d at 599; see also Sanduteh v. Muroski, 684 F.2d 252, 254 (3d Cir.1982) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Here, Giles asserts that the City violated 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a  1983 claim accrues when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of injury (B) holding that in an environmental contamination ease a cause of action accrues  when a plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of his or her cause of action and of the identity of a party or parties who may be responsible for the injury (C) holding that a federal cause of action accrues when the plaintiff is aware or should be aware of the existence of and source of the injury not when the potential claimant knows or should know that the injury constitutes a legal wrong (D) holding that  1983 claim accrues when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of injury (E) holding that a  1983 claim generally accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action 
answer:
holding that a  1983 claim accrues when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of injury


question:
will “potentially eliminat[e] a substantial expenditure of time, resources, and money of the parties, their counsel, and the Court that may later be determined to have been unnecessary.” Pis.’ Br. filed Nov. 19, 2007, at 9. Because the opinion and order meets all of the requirements for certification, the court, in its discretion, grants plaintiffs’ motion to certify an interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, as follows: 1. The paragraph of the ordering language on page 25 in the court’s November 9, 2007 opinion and order is amended, as follows: Defendant’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment is granted, and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is denied. Because controlling questions of law are involved with respect to which there are substantial grounds for di 5) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that gross income can include interest or dividends accruing to fathers ira (B) holding that an overstatement of basis can constitute an omission from gross income within the meaning of irc  6501e1a (C) holding that trial judge has discretion to not include bonuses as part of gross income if he or she determines that the bonus income is not dependable or would place a hardship on a parent (D) holding gross receipts provision provides exception for trade or business to general meaning of gross income provided in section 61a so reporting of gross proceeds alone from sales of commodities would not prevent application of irc  6501e1a (E) holding gross receipts provision to supply exception to general definition of gross income in case of trade or business and applying irc  6501e1a to omission of income
answer:
holding that gross income can include interest or dividends accruing to fathers ira


question:
have read the Supreme Court’s discretionary function cases as denying protection to actions that are unauthorized because they are unconstitutional, proscribed by statute, or exceed the scope of an official’s authority.” Thames Shipyard & Repair Co. v. United States, 350 F.3d 247, 254-55 (1st Cir.2003) (col lecting cases). However, we have not resolved whether the discretionary function exception extends to actions that are otherwise outside the scope of an official’s actual federal authority, and we need not do so here. Nor do we address whether Desrosiers had implied federal authority to participate in the arrest to the limited extent of swearing out the criminal complaint, receiving the arrest warrant, and assisting Wing in the execution of that warrant. See, e.g., id. at 260 (<HOLDING>). Assuming, arguendo, that the USPS is not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the discretionary function exception applied where the coast guard had implied statutory authority to order the evacuation of a sinking ship (B) holding that the coast guards forcible evacuation of a sinking sea vessel constituted a seizure of the persons therein (C) holding that the discretionary function does not apply where the decisionmaker lacks authority (D) holding that the discretionary function exception may apply in the absence of a conscious decision  (E) recognizing a discretionary function exception to that waiver
answer:

holding that the coast guards forcible evacuation of a sinking sea vessel constituted a seizure of the persons therein