shown deliberate indifference on the basis of their “current attitudes and conduct.” See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 2482, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993). Defendants’ efforts to move inmates from Jail No. 3 to relieve overcrowding preclude any finding of deliberate indifference. Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment for defendants as to the crowding and space allocation in Jail No. 3. 2. Fire Safety. Inmates “have the right not to be subjected to the unreasonable threat of injury or death by fire and need not wait until actual casualties occur in order to obtain relief from such conditions.” Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779, 784 (9th Cir.1985), (citing Leeds v. Watson, 630 F.2d 674, 675-76 (9th Cir.1980)); see also Helling, 509 U.S. at 33, 113 S.Ct. at 2481 (<HOLDING>). On September 14, 1995, a fire and safety
holding that rendition is remedy for no evidence holding that an employer need not wait indefinitely for  medical conditions to be corrected holding that the remedy in a prison conditions case must remedy actual injuries that have been identified by the court and suffered by the plaintiffs holding that a remedy for unsafe conditions need not await a tragic event holding that to be defective and unsafe an improvement need not be a risk to human health