Plaintiff Linda Selensky, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of her amended complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We affirm.

We review the district court’s dismissal of a claim as frivolous for abuse of discretion. Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001). “A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in fact or law.” Id. At the same time, we recognize that pro se pleadings are construed liberally. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003).

Here, Selensky appears to allege that she has been deprived of her civil rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Her amended complaint mentions due process, discrimination, civil rights conspiracy, fraud, false imprisonment, assault and battery, and the tort of outrage. There are not, however, factual allegations accompanying these claims that would plausibly entitle Selensky to relief. Moreover, there is no legal claim sufficient to overcome the State of Alabama’s sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 3057-58, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978) (per curiam); Cross v. Alabama, 49 F.3d 1490, 1502 (11th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, there is no arguable merit to Selen-sky’s claim, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing it as frivolous.

AFFIRMED.