ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

JEREMY D. PETERSON, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Ruth Gonzalez appealed defendant's decision denying her application for Social Security benefits by filing a complaint before this court on August 26, 2018. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis the same day. ECF No. 2. The court granted plaintiff's motion and issued a summons. ECF Nos. 3, 4. The court also issued a scheduling order, which set a deadline of thirty days after service of the administrative record for plaintiff to serve defendant with her letter brief and to file proof of service. ECF No. 5, ¶3. Defendant filed the administrative record on November 27, 2019. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service of her letter brief.

To manage our docket effectively, we impose deadlines on litigants and require litigants to meet them. When a plaintiff fails to comply with court-imposed deadlines, we may dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) ("[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances."). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and to avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.

We will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for her failure to prosecute. Plaintiff's failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result in dismissal of this case. Accordingly, plaintiff must show cause within thirty days of the date of entry of this order why the court should not dismiss her case for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.