* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11208

Summary Calendar

ALAN BOWEN

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

LINDA STEWART; JOSEPH STEWART; LORY J HUNT; STEPHEN ELLIS,

35th District Judge, Brown County, TX; SKYLAR SUDDERTH, Attorney,

Comanche, TX; NITA MEADOR, Attorney, Brownwood, TX; LEE HANEY,

Attorney, Brownwood, TX; KEITH WOODLEY, Attorney, Comanche, TX; JOHN

L BLAGG, Attorney, Brownwood, TX; MIKE MCCOY, Chief Deputy, Brown

County Sheriff's Office; CINDY MCCOY, Manager of Texaco Highway 377; LEE

WILSON,Texas Department of Criminal Justice Parole Officer, Brownwood, TX;

REBECCA K GREEN, Investigator; BILLY WADE; CYNTHIA WADE; KIRBY

ROBERTS, Attorney, Brownwood, TX; FRED FRANKLIN, JR, Special

Appointed District Attorney, Brownwood, TX; GLEN SMITH, Brown County

Sheriff

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:07-CV-26

Before DAVIS, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 7, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-11208

2

Alan Bowen, Texas prisoner # 1125407, filed a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various defendants, asserting that they engaged in a

conspiracy to “sell” his daughter by involuntarily terminating his parental rights

and permitting an adoption. He appeals the district court’s dismissal of his case

as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). He does not, however,

challenge the district court’s conclusions thatlower federal courts cannot review

state parental termination proceedings, that Bowen's claims are malicious, or

that Bowen failed to establish the existence of a conspiracy. These claims are

thus deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,

813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Bowen asserts that the district court erred in dismissing as untimely a

lawsuit filed in 2003 that challenged the parental termination proceedings.

Because He never filed a timely notice of appeal from any judgment in those

proceedings, we lack jurisdiction to address his claims. See Bowles v. Russell,

127 S. Ct. 2360, 2366 (2007); FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Bowen also arguably

asserts that the district court erred in dismissing the instant lawsuit as

untimely. He has failed to establish that the proceeding filed in 2007 was filed

within two years of the termination of parental rights in 2001. See Owens v.

Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50 (1989); TEX. CIV. PRAC. AND REM. CODE ANN.

§ 16.003(a).

Bowen asserts that the district court erred in denying his postjudgment

motion for recusal on the basis of bias. Bowen’s motion was untimely. See

United States v. Sanford, 157F.3d 987, 988-89 (5th Cir. 1998). Moreover, Bowen

has not made a sufficient showing of an extrajudicial bias by the district court

judge that would support recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555

(1994).

The appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is

dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts
No. 07-11208

3

as a strike under § 1915(g), as does the district court’s dismissal of Bowen’s

action. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Bowen

previously accumulated a strike. See Bowen v. Thompson, No. 6:03-CV-037-C

(N.D. Tex. July 14, 2003)(unpublished). Because Bowen has now accumulated

three strikes, he is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in any civil action

or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he “is

under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.