United States District Court, D. Maryland
J. MESSITTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
2, 2016, the Court received for filing the above-captioned
Complaint filed by self-represented Plaintiff Nicole Yvette
Winston, ("Ms. Winston") a resident of Fort
Washington, Maryland. Ms. Winston sues the Air Force Review
Board Agency ("AFRBA"), raising claims of
constitutional rights violations,  violations of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, violation of Article 19 of the
Maryland Declaration of Rights, battery, harassment,
conspiracy, harm to economic and dignitary interests,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious
interferences with family relationships, and loss of
consortium. ECF No. 1. She invokes this Court's federal
question jurisdiction under § 1331 and seeks leave to
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee.
Ms. Winston is proceeding as a self-represented litigant, the
Court must liberally construe her Complaint allegations.
See e.g., Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). This Court, however, is not required to conjure up
questions never squarely presented to it. See Beaudett
v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985).
Further, a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief shall
contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which
the court's jurisdiction depends; a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief; and a demand for judgment for the relief the
pleader seeks. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Although
self-represented pleadings must be "liberally
construed" and "held to less stringent standards
than those by lawyers, " Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), a Complaint need not contain detailed
allegations. The facts alleged must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level and require
"more than labels and conclusions, " as
"courts are not bound to accept as true a legal
conclusion couched as a factual allegation." See
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007), citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286
Winston has not paid the filing fee. Instead, she has filed a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2,
which shall be granted. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and 19l5A
permit an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal
court without prepaying the filing fee. To protect against
possible abuses of this privilege, the statute requires a
court to dismiss any case that "fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 19l5A(b)(1).
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), the United
States Supreme Court held that a district court may dismiss
the complaint of a self-represented litigant under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 when the complaint includes only a "fanciful
factual allegation" and lacks "an arguable basis
either in law or in fact." Id. at 325; see
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992)
("[A] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous
only if the facts alleged are ‘clearly baseless, '
a category encompassing allegations that are ‘fanciful,
' ‘fantastic, ' and ‘delusional.'
"). As those words suggest, a finding of factual
frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to
the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether
or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to
Winston claims that she worked for the AFRBA on the Andrews
Air Force Base as a law Clerk in 2001 and 2002 and was
subject to "intimidation" She alleges she became
ill and believes something was put in her coffee causing her
to lose body mass and to experience body pains in the ensuing
five years. ECF No. 1. She claims that her primary care
physician "tried to convince me" that the
conditions were psychological. Ms. Winston asserts that she
was "blackballed" out of employment and that the
purpose "of me being on the [Air Force Base] was to be
set up for more harassment and harm. Id. She seeks
special damages in the amount of $133, 577.00, based upon a
salary of $45, 000.00 from March of 2002 to December of 2007.
In her Prayer for Relief, however, Ms. Winston seeks
"general (noneconomic) damages in the amount of $815,
000.00." Ms. Winston claims that she resigned in 2007
"due to harassment, harm, and lack of suitable
employment, liberty and due process issues as well as equal
protection issues as provided under the law. Id.
Winston additionally states that for years after her
employment at the AFRBA she was "underemployed" as
a contract attorney, while being harassed or antagonized on
different assignments. She maintains that this resulted in
her filing for bankruptcy in 2006. She further contends that
"the AFRBA, along with other government entities, are
behind a massive conspiracy [of harassment] against me"
involving incidents from 2006 to 2007, (apartment entry,
theft from car, flat automobile tires, rude comments made and
inappropriate actions taken by unidentified persons in
private companies). Id.
forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed, however,
simply because the court finds the plaintiff's
allegations unlikely. Neitzke explained that the
statute "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. Indeed, § 1915 was amended after
Neitzke and Denton, such that now the
statute mandates that a district court "shall
dismiss" a case upon a finding that the Complaint
"fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (B)(ii); see
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000).
when providing a generous review to the self-represented
Complaint, see, e.g., Erikson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. at 127, I find it proper to dismiss Ms.
Winston's Complaint. See Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 (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); Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325-28. The Court
concludes that Ms. Winston has presented claims that are
wholly speculative and nonsensical. It is appropriate to
dismiss her action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii)
for the failure to state a claim.
instant matter is subject to dismissal. A separate order
 Ms. Winston cites to 42 U.S, .C,
§§ 19811983, 1985 and 1986; the Fifth, Fourteenth,
Fourth, First, Eighth, Sixth, and Ninth Amendments of the
U.S. Constitution; and federal criminal and Maryland
statutory code provisions. She seeks an injunction against
"biological weapons. ECF No. 1.
 A federal court does not act as an
advocate for a self-represented claimant. See Brock v.
Carroll, 107 F.3d 241, 242-43 (4th Cir. 1996);
Weller v. Department of Social Servs., 901 F.2d 387,
391 (4th Cir. 1990); Gordon v. ...