2    may issue only if the petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional  right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)-(3). A substantial showing is made when the petitioner demonstrates  that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should  have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve  encouragement to proceed further.’”Miller-El v. Cockrell,537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quoting  Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). “If the petition was denied on procedural grounds,  the petitioner must show, ‘at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition  states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it  debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Dufresne v. Palmer,  876 F.3d 248, 252-53 (6th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (quotingSlack, 529 U.S. at 484).  In this case, reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the Court’s decision to  dismiss the Petition. Because any appeal by Petitioner does not deserve attention, the Court  DENIES a certificate of appealability.  Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), a party seeking pauper status on  appeal must first file a motion in the district court, along with a supporting affidavit. Fed. R. App.  P. 24(a). However, Rule 24(a) also provides that if the district court certifies that an appeal would  not be taken in good faith, the prisoner must file his motion to proceedin forma pauperisin the  appellate court.Id.  Case 1:21-cv-01103-STA-jay Document 6 Filed 10/14/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID 29