Unfortunately, it is all too common that a court must dismiss a pro se plaintiff's action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) when the plaintiff fails to appear for his or her deposition. See, e.g., Anaeme v. FHP of New Mexico, 201 F.3d 447 (10th Cir. 1999); L'Ggrke v. Asset Plus Corp., 641 Fed.Appx. 779, 780 (10th Cir. 2016); Raiser v. Brigham Young Univ., No. 2:02-cv-975-TC, 2007 WL 3231525 (D. Utah Oct. 30, 2007); aff'd, Raiser v. Brigham Young Univ., 297 Fed. App'x. 750 (10th Cir. 2008); Johnson v. Little, No. 17-cv-02993-RBJ-NRN, 2019 WL 7404035, at *2 (D. Colo. Nov. 14, 2019) (dismissing case for inmate failure to appear for deposition), report and recommendation adopted, No. 17-cv-02993-RBJ-NRN, 2020 WL 289520 (D. Colo. Jan. 21, 2020). The Mobley test demands the same outcome here, based on every factor.

Unfortunately, it is all too common that a court must dismiss a pro se plaintiff's action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) when the plaintiff fails to appear for his or her deposition. See, e.g., Anaeme v. FHP of New Mexico, 201 F.3d 447 (10th Cir. 1999); L'Ggrke v. Asset Plus Corp., 641 Fed.Appx. 779, 780 (10th Cir. 2016); Raiser v. Brigham Young Univ., No. 2:02-cv-975-TC, 2007 WL 3231525 (D. Utah Oct. 30, 2007); aff'd, Raiser v. Brigham Young Univ., 297 Fed. App'x. 750 (10th Cir. 2008); Johnson v. Little, No. 17-cv-02993-RBJ-NRN, 2019 WL 7404035, at *2 (D. Colo. Nov. 14, 2019) (dismissing case for inmate failure to appear for deposition), report and recommendation adopted, No. 17-cv-02993-RBJ-NRN, 2020 WL 289520 (D. Colo. Jan. 21, 2020). The Mobley test demands the same outcome here, based on every factor.