his unexhausted claims. The court denied the motion to stay for failure to identify his unexhausted constitutional claims. It also denied Mr. Benson’s motion to amend due to the timeliness requirements of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the absence of a statutory or equitable basis for tolling the applicable limitations period. Finally, the court denied Mr. Benson’s § 2254 petition for failure to establish that he was in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. A state prisoner may only appeal the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus after receiving a COA from either this court or the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (<HOLDING>). We can issue a COA “only if the applicant has
holding that a coa is a jurisdictional prerequisite holding that the ninetyday filing requirement is not a jurisdictional prerequisite and is subject to equitable tolling recognizing that injury is a prerequisite to liability holding that the requirement of an actual case or controversy is a jurisdictional prerequisite under the constitution holding exhaustion of regulatory administrative process is jurisdictional prerequisite to district court hearing discrimination claim