### The HONORABLE SCOTT O. WRIGHT, United States District Judge 1 

### for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report an d re commendation of the HONORABLE WILLIAM A. KNOX, United State s Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-2002

___________ Kristan Standish, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Gerald Bommel; Dave Dobson; * District Court for the Michael Groose; Barbara * Western District of Missouri. Schriro; George Lombardi; Elmer * Wankum; Earl Halderman; Vernon * [PUBLISHED] Taylor, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: February 21, 1996 Filed: April 19, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM.
Kristan Standish, a former inmate at the Jefferson City Correctional Center (JCCC), filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment r ights by subjecting him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Sta ndish appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. We affirm.

1

### -2- Highlighting on appeal an issue he d id not emphasize in the district court, Standish argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on his claim that defendants were delib erately indifferent to the risk of fire in JCCC Housing Unit 5C ("HU 5C") because HU 5C had no smoke dete ctors or water sprinklers, was inadequately ventilated, and lacke d sufficient emergency procedures. We have held that the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard of Wilson v. Se iter , 501 U.S. 294, 302-03 (1991), applies to "safety conditions in the prison work place." Warren v. Missouri , 995 F.2d 130, 131 (8th Cir. 1993). We likewise conclude that it applies to prison conditions affecting fire safety. However, not all unsafe conditions are cruel and unusual punishment under the Eight h Amen dment. First, to violate the Eighth Amendment, a condition mus t "involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain." Rhodes v
. Chapman , 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). That is, in this context, it must be an objectively serious safety risk to the plaintiff inmate. Second, the condition, or the risk it creates, must be the product of defendants ' de liberate indifference; mere negligence does not violate the Eight h Amendment. See Wilson , 501 U.S. at 305.
After careful review of the record, we conclude that Standish failed to make a sufficient showing that defendants wer e deliberately indifferent to serious risks of fire safety to withstand defendants' motion for summar y judgm ent. The evidence showed that the only recent fires started whe n inmates set fire to mattresses or bedding; that neither Standish nor anyon e els e had been injured by smoke inhalation or fire; and that priso n officials had taken action to deal with fire hazards, for example, b y prohibiting smoking in HU 5C. Thus, Standish's allegations did not rise above mere negligence.
The district court also properly granted summary judgment on th e other claim Standish presses on appeal, that HU 5C leaked in bad weather, forcing him to move his mattress to the floor to stay

### -3-

dr y. See Rhodes , 452 U.S. at 349 (Constitution does not mandat e comfortable prisons). In addition, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to appoint counsel, see Abdullah v. Gunter , 949 F.2 d 1032, 1035 (8th Cir. 1991), cert. denied , 504 U. S. 930 (1992), and did not err in denying Standish's motions for sanctions. Cf. Sylla-Sawdon v
. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. , 47 F.3d 277, 280 (8th Cir.) (district court ha s great latitude regarding imposition of sanctions), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct
. 84 (1995). Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.