Scott

MEMORANDUM *

Cleveland Scott appeals an order of the district court dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm the district court’s order. We also deny Scott’s motion to broaden the certificate of appeal-ability (“COA”).

Scott correctly asserts that the amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 made by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub.L. No. 104-134, § 804 , 110 Stat. 1321 -66, 1321-73 to -75, do not apply in habeas proceedings. Naddi v. Hill, 106 F.3d 275 , 277 (9th Cir.1997). The district court, however, did not erroneously require Scott to comply with the filing fee provisions of the PLRA; rather, the court dismissed Scott’s case because of his failure to obey the court’s order either to pay the five dollar filing fee or to show cause why he could not do so. Nor was Scott prevented from complying with the district court’s order by extraordinary circumstances. The circumstances articulated by Scott may have prevented him from timely paying the fee; they do not explain, however, why he could not timely have informed the court of the reason he could not pay the fee, and thus comply…