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

for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and

recommendation of the HONORABLE WILLIAM A. KNOX, United States

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 rights by subjecting him to

unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Standish appeals the district

court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. We affirm. 1
-2-

Highlighting on appeal an issue he did not emphasize in the district

court, Standish argues that the district court erred in granting summary

judgment on his claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to the

risk of fire in JCCC Housing Unit 5C ("HU 5C") because HU 5C had no smoke

detectors or water sprinklers, was inadequately ventilated, and lacked

sufficient emergency procedures. We have held that the Eighth Amendment

deliberate indifference standard of Wilson v. Seiter, 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 Eighth

Amendment. First, to violate the Eighth Amendment, a condition must

"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'

deliberate indifference; mere negligence does not violate the Eighth

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 were deliberately indifferent

to serious risks of fire safety to withstand defendants' motion for summary

judgment. The evidence showed that the only recent fires started when

inmates set fire to mattresses or bedding; that neither Standish nor anyone

else had been injured by smoke inhalation or fire; and that prison

officials had taken action to deal with fire hazards, for example, by

prohibiting smoking in HU 5C. Thus, Standish's allegations did not rise

above mere negligence. 

The district court also properly granted summary judgment on the

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-

dry. See Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 349 (Constitution does not mandate

comfortable prisons). In addition, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in refusing to appoint counsel, see Abdullah v. Gunter, 949 F.2d

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 has

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.