ORDER

LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.

This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by a Nevada state prisoner. By order filed January 6, 2012, this Court denied petitioner's motions for discovery. (ECF No. 25). On January 17, 2012, petitioner filed a notice of appeal as to the Court's January 6, 2012 order. (ECF No. 26).

In order to proceed with his appeal, petitioner must receive a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 22; 9th Cir. R. 22-1; Allen v. Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946, 950-951 (9th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Mikels, 236 F.3d 550, 551-52 (9th Cir. 2001). Generally, a petitioner must make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" to warrant a certificate of appealability. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). "The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Id. (quoting Slack, 529 U.S. at 484). In order to meet this threshold inquiry, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues differently; or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Id.

In the present case, the Court denied petitioner's motions for discovery because petitioner failed to show good cause to conduct discovery in the instant habeas case. See Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; see also Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 905-909 (1997). (ECF No. 25). No reasonable jurist could conclude that the Court's order denying discovery Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's notice of appeal, construed as an application for a certificate of appealability (ECF No. 26), is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.