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

JEREMY D. PETERSON, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff David Charles Dreier appealed defendant's decision denying his application for Social Security benefits by filing a complaint before this court on August 31, 2018. ECF No. 2. The clerk issued summons the same day. ECF No. 5. The court also issued a scheduling order and order requesting consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or reassignment within ninety days. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff has not responded to the court order or served the complaint.

Service of a complaint is required within ninety days of filing, unless plaintiff shows good cause for his failure to serve defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires litigants to meet those deadlines. When a plaintiff fails to comply with court-imposed deadlines, the court may dismiss the plaintiff's 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 a district court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.

We give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for his failure to prosecute. Plaintiff's failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order.

Accordingly, plaintiff must show cause within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this order why the court should not dismiss his case for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.