his father’s death, and the district court thereafter warned Solimán it would not grant any further extensions. Although Solimán asserts he was residing out of state when the court entered an order warning of no further extensions, a litigant who invokes the processes of the federal courts is responsible for maintaining communication with the court during the pendency of his lawsuit. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir.1988) (per curiam) (“A party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprised of any changes in his mailing address.”). Solimán waited until several days after his father’s death and within a few days of the revised deadline to file his March 29 extension motion. See Noll v. Petrovsky, 828 F.2d 461, 462 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). We further note that, although the district
holding that a trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion holding that the court was precluded from considering whether the district court had abused its discretion in ruling on defendants summary judgment motion before allowing plaintiff to conduct requested discovery where the plaintiff had not filed an affidavit pursuant to rule 56f and stating that  when a party does not avail himself of relief under rule 56f it is generally not an abuse of discretion for the district court to rule on the motion for summary judgment  citation omitted holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding hearsay evidence and evidence that violated the best evidence rule in deciding a summary judgment motion holding district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on summary judgment motion where inter alia plaintiff had been given repeated notices court intended to rule on motion and it was plaintiffs burden to rebut defendants evidence