J. FREDERICK MOTZ, District Judge.
On November 12, 2013, Plaintiff, a resident of Baltimore, Maryland filed this self-represented complaint invoking this court's federal question and diversity jurisdictions under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332. She raises the following claims:
"I am a citizen of the U.S. and was sexually assaulted numerous times in a hotel in Charlotte, N.C. During the assaults a device was implanted in my private parts between the m[o]nths of July - August 31st 2012. I went to two hospitals, Novant in NC & Sinai of Baltimore and was ordered by Michelle Obama to go to Shepard Pratt. Since Sept. 2012, I have been assessed by the Public and have had my brain scanned through a [unintelligible] and computerized by aircraft under the President of U.S. orders within the last week & ½ someone implanted my heart from a distance & computerized it. FBI, My daughter, who was 19 at the time, was sexually assaulted on Sept. 18, 2013, by the President who used Baltimore officers to bring her to his location. They are trying to kill me because of fraud.
ECF No. 1 at 2-3. Plaintiff does not articulate what relief she is seeking.
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. Her motion shall be granted. In addition, she has filed a motion for a temporary injunction against the defendants. ECF No. 3. She claims that she has "been turned into a robot" and has had her brain and heart scanned and computerized. She claims that the FBI is harassing and monitoring her, and is "turning me on and off daily." In effect, she seeks to enjoin defendants from continuing to take action against her. Id.
This court may preliminarily review the complaint allegations before service of process and dismiss them if satisfied that the Complaint has no factual or legal basis. The complaint shall be summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for the failure to state a claim. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (a complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) if it does not allege enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face). In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), the United States Supreme Court held that a district court may dismiss the complaint of a pro se litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) when the complaint lacks "an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Id. at 325. Neitzke explained that "[§ 1015(e)(2)(B) ] accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." Id. at 327. Additionally, under Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992), a court may dismiss as frivolous in forma pauperis complaints whose factual allegations are fanciful, fantastic, delusional, irrational, or wholly incredible, but not those which are simply unlikely.
Plaintiff's factual statement of claim is replete with fanciful illusions. The allegations contain not even a hint of a claim under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States or Maryland. Therefore, because the alleged factual basis for plaintiff's lawsuit is plainly irrational, and wholly beyond belief, the case is subject to summary dismissal as frivolous. ...