With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Temple’s action against Yuba City, Sutter County, Sutter County prosecutors, and certain employees of the California State Prison system, deemed filed on December 16, 2004, was time-barred. See CaLCode Civ. P. § 335.1 (2006) (providing a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Id. § 352.1 ■ (tolling the statute of limitations for up to two years while plaintiff is incarcerated); see also Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir.2004) (“For actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions, along with the forum state’s law regarding tolling....”). Temple knew or had reason to know of the injuries that were the basis of his claim in 1996. See Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954-55 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). The district court properly dismissed

A: 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
B: holding that statute of limitations for malpractice begins to run when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the alleged malpractice
C: holding that a  1983 claim accrues when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of injury
D: holding that the limitations period for  1983 actions arising in ohio is the twoyear period found in ohio rev code  230510 and that the limitations period starts to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action
C.