due process rights in grievance procedures, see Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988) (order), and Simmons failed to plead facts showing that any defendant acted with an intent to discriminate against him on the basis of his membership in a protected class, see Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9th Cir.2005) (plaintiff seeking to state claim for violation of equal protection must allege intent or purpose to discriminate based on membership in protected class). The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Simmons’s action without prejudice under Rule 4(m) because Simmons did not serve Newton and failed to establish good cause for not having done so. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m); see also Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 755-56 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Simmons’s remaining contentions are
holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause recognizing that a finding of excusable neglect under rule 6b2 requires both a demonstration of good faith and a reasonable basis for not complying within the specified period recognizing that although the term good cause is undefined it is at least as demanding as the excusable neglect standard holding the principles of equitable tolling  do not extend to what is at best a garden variety claim of excusable neglect holding that good cause means at a minimum excusable neglect