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

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?