With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The Court finds that equitable tolling is appropriate in this case. Scary’s delay in paying the filing fee was not due to mere “excusable neglect.” He did not delay because he was too busy or preoccupied with other matters, or even because there was a miscommunieation as to the due date. Rather, he failed to pay the fee in a timely manner because of the misperception — created by the court — that he had done everything that was required of him. In Scary’s mind, he had been completely diligent at all times, and he had not neglected his claim at all. Cf. Irwin, 498 U.S. at 96, 111 S.Ct. 453 (denying equitable tolling where the complaint was filed 14 days late because the plaintiffs attorney was out of the country); New Castle County v. Halliburton NUS Corp., 111 F.3d 1116, 1126 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Turning to the six situations presented in

A: holding that dismissal was required where overall length of prosecution was 16 months state was responsible for 13 months of delay and six months of that delay was due to simple neglect
B: holding that equitable tolling of the time to file a notice of appeal is not permitted
C: holding that a petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling where he waited six months to file a federal petition after any state misconduct ended
D: holding that a cercla plaintiffs failure to file a timely complaint allegedly because it was so busy cleaning up the landfill might constitute excusable neglect but did not justify equitable tolling where the damage was discovered six months prior to the accrual date
D.