Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
as available only when the adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party. In that instance, the diligent party must be protected lest he be faced with interminable delay and continued uncertainty as to his rights.” The court went on to say that the possibility of being held in default acts as a deterrent to those parties resorting to delay as an element of their litigation strategy. 10 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2681 (1983) (quoting H.F. Livermore Corp. v. Aktiengesellschaft Gebruder Loepfe, 432 F.2d 689, 691 (D.C.Cir.1970)). Some courts have considered default judgement to be an appropriate sanction when a respondent fails to answer the writ. See, e.g., Ruiz v. Cady, 660 F.2d 337 (7th Cir.1981) . In Ruiz v. Cady, the court reasoned that if
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding generally that new rules of law should not be applied retroactively in habeas corpus cases
B. holding that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to review the weight of evidence  
C. holding mcnally not to be retroactive in habeas corpus proceeding reversed on appeal
D. holding that although default judgement should be rare in a habeas corpus proceeding it should be preserved as a sanction against a respondents unwarranted delay
E. holding that managing conservator while in texas to seek return of child by writ of habeas corpus may not be served with civil process and is subject to jurisdiction of court in which habeas corpus is pending and only for purpose of prosecuting writ of habeas corpus
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.