has not shown that she exercised particular diligence in pursuing her rights once she realized the deadline had passed and her attorney could not be found, we find it inappropriate to exercise our equitable powers and toll the statute of limitations in this case. Having affirmed the district court’s dismissal on procedural grounds, we need not address the issue of the underlying merits of Cummings’ original § 2254 petition. The district court dismissed the § 2254 petition without addressing the merits of those claims. Moreover, it appears the district improperly granted a “blanket” certificate of appealability as to the merits of claims asserted in the original § 2254 petition, rather than addressing the claims individually. See Porterfield v. Bell, 258 F.3d 484, 487 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>)- The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
holding that the issue of defendants actual knowledge should not be resolved on summary judgment but should be left to the trier of fact holding that district courts should not issue blanket grants of certification and should instead treat each claim individually holding that the idea grants district courts broad discretion to craft appropriate relief holding that a court of appeals should review de novo a district courts determination of state law holding that federal courts should apply state substantive law