1. Whether a federal district court's refusal to enter a clerk's
default and default judgment against a defendant who has
failed to file a responsive pleading, having only filed a motion
for an extension of time, constitutes such a departure from the
accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to
warrant the exercise of this Court's supervisory power?

2. Whether a motion for an extension of time to answer a
complaint constitutes a responsive paper for the purpose of
preventing a default, especially where the defendant has still
not filed an answer or other responsive pleading even after
the extension has been granted?

3. Whether a direct appeal to this Court is necessary due to
the lack of certiorari jurisdiction in the Ele venth Circuit Court
of Appeals for this specific issue, particularly in a case
involving a universally applied injunction where the
defaulted defendant is not a named party or qualifying party
under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?

Whether a federal district court's refusal to enter a clerk's default and default judgment against a defendant who has failed to file a responsive pleading constitutes a departure from accepted judicial proceedings warranting Supreme Court supervisory power