Pamela Shirley has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing her civil action as factually frivolous. An IFP complaint shall be dismissed if it has no arguable basis in law or in fact. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)®; see also Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). Shirley’s unsworn narrative declarations do not show that the fantastic events described in her complaint have any basis in fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). There is no reason to believe that the deficiencies in Shirley’s pleadings could be cured through further factual development. The motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King,

-. 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); see also 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Shirley’s motion for appointment of counsel is also DENIED. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.