OPINION *
Maurice Price, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the District Courts dismissal of his complaint. For the following reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Courts judgment.
In his complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), Price named over fifty individuals and entities as defendants. He alleged a vast government conspiracy, beginning at his birth and continuing to the present day, to use technology to control his mind and manipulate his behavior. He claimed that this mind control caused him to commit the criminal acts that led to his incarceration and has inflicted innumerable other conditions and effects on him over the past forty-three years. The District Court dismissed Prices complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), finding that Prices allegations were factually baseless and frivolous. The District Court also found that any attempt to amend the complaint would be futile and entered its dismissal with prejudice. Price appeals and moves for appointment of counsel.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. As Price is proceeding pro se, we construe his complaint liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam). We may summarily affirm if the appeal fails to present a substantial question. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam); 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
Because Price had been granted in forma pauperis status, the District Court properly reviewed his complaint for possible dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Section 1915(e)(2)(B)
1
provides a court with “the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaints factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). “[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 contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992).
Having reviewed Prices complaint, we agree with the District Courts conclusion that his allegations are factually baseless and frivolous. Id. at 32-33, 112 S.Ct. 1728 (a complaint may be dismissed as lacking a basis in fact if it is premised upon “allegations that are ‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ and ‘delusional’ ”) (citations omitted). Price has not provided any argument in support of his appeal to warrant a contrary conclusion. Accordingly, because this appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm.
2
FOOTNOTES
1
. Formerly § 1915(d).
2
. Prices motion for appointment of counsel is also denied. See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 1993) (a claims “arguable merit in fact and law” is a prerequisite to the appointment of counsel).
PER CURIAM