Killinger v. Jager Motion for First Amended Complaint

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TERRI KEYSER-COOPER
Law Office of Terri Keyser-Cooper
Nevada Bar No. 3984
125 Edgewater Parkway
Reno, NV 89519
(775) 337-0323
Keysercooper@lawyer.com
Attorney for Plaintiff Jason Killinger
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
JASON KILLINGER, Case No. 3:25-cv-388-MMD-CSD
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
v.
RENO POLICE OFFICER R. JAGER,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff KILLINGER, by and through his attorney of record, Terri Keyser-Cooper,
respectfully moves this Court for leave to file his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in the
following respects:
1) By adding a wrongful arrest claim, a violation of the Fourth Amendment, against
Defendant Reno Police Officer, R. Jager;
2) By adding a new party, City of Reno;
3) By adding a new claim, municipal liability, as against the City of Reno;
4) By revising the Complaint to more fully and accurately describe the wrongful acts
alleged of each wrongdoer and the factual basis for each claim; and,
5) By revising the title of the FAC to read as follows:
Case 3:25-cv-00388-MMD-CSD Document 45 Filed 01/25/26 Page 1 of 7

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JASON KILLINGER,
Plaintiff,
v.
RENO POLICE OFFICER R.
JAGER and CITY OF RENO,
Defendants.
II. FEDERAL POLICY FAVORS GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND WHEN JUSTICE
SO REQUIRES
Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instructs courts to “freely give leave
[to amend] when justice so requires.” See Arizona Students' Ass'n v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 824
F.3d 858, 871 (9th Cir. 2016). “This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” C.F. v.
Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 985 (9th Cir. 2011) (Emp. added); Eminence Capital,
LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th
Cir. 2003). Absent prejudice, the court may decline to
grant leave to amend only where there is a strong showing of: (1) undue delay, (2) bad faith or
dilatory motive, (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, (4)
undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, or (5) futility of
amendment. See Sonoma Cty. Ass 'n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117
(9th Cir. 2013). Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of the other factors, there exists a
presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S 178,
83 S.Ct. 227 (1962).
A. No Undue Delay
Here there is no undue delay. Plaintiff Jason Killinger (“Killinger”) seeks leave to amend his
police misconduct case within days of taking the deposition of Defendant Officer Jager (“Jager”) on
January 22, 2026. At his deposition Jager made statements clarifying the full extent of his multiple

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
wrongful and unconstitutional acts and implicated the City of Reno as a wrongdoer—therefore
requiring inclusion of the City of Reno as to municipal liability. Further, shortly before his January
22, 2026 deposition, new documents, never before seen or provided or even hinted at, were
delivered to Killinger’s attorney, Terri Keyser-Cooper as part of Mr. Killinger’s discovery requests.
These new documents changed the entirety of the case and should have been provided in
initial disclosures.1
These new documents were not available when Killinger’s original complaint
was filed. These documents made clear that Jager’s arrest of Mr. Killinger was unlawful and
without probable cause. At his deposition January 22, 2026 deposition, Jager took full responsibility
for the wrongful arrest of Killinger, testifying it never should have happened, such an arrest based
on artificial intelligence facial recognition software required corroboration and there was none in
Killinger’s case.
B. Justice Requires Amending the Complaint
It is of utmost importance that Killinger’s complaint be amended based on very recent
developments. Killinger was arrested by Jager at the Peppermill Casino in Reno in 2023 based
solely and exclusively on an inaccurate identification made by the Peppermill’s facial recognition
software. There is no dispute the Peppermill’s software was inaccurate as the Peppermill has
admitted its inaccuracy. (Exh. 1). Jager testified at his deposition that he arrested Killinger solely
and exclusively because he believed in the accuracy of the Peppermill’s facial recognition software
and it was the custom and policy of the Reno Police Department (“RPD”) to trust such software and
to arrest persons based on such software without any other corroborating evidence.
Jager testified at his January 22nd
deposition that within the last six months he had received
RPD training on artificial intelligence facial recognition software. Jager testified that because of his
recent training he now understands that facial recognition software is only a tool, and must never be
1
Killinger’s attorney is not accusing Jager’s attorney, Alice Herobsheimer, of misconduct.
In a case with hundreds of documents sometimes an oversight is made.

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
used to furnish probable cause for an arrest. (Exh. 2). Jager testified he now knows, as a result of his
recent training, that facial recognition software alone must never form the basis for an arrest and in
all cases must be supported by collaborative evidence. Jager admitted when he arrested Killinger,
he trusted in the accuracy of the Peppermill’s artificial intelligence and conducted no further
investigation. Jager testified Killinger’s arrest was wrongful and he now knows that Killinger was a
completely innocent man. Jager testified should the same situation repeat, he would never make a
similar arrest without investigation and corroborating evidence. Jager further testified that he would
agree to apologize to Killinger and when asked to do so at his deposition by Killinger’s attorney,
was prevented from doing so by his attorney.
It was unforeseeable at the time Killinger filed his original complaint that Jager would admit
to such actions. It is a rare case in which a police officer admits to a wrongful arrest. As to the
City of Reno, Jager testified repeatedly that at the time of Killinger’s arrest he understood from the
policies, customs and practice of RPD that arrests based on artificial intelligence alone or by a
citizen’s arrest made by a private person (here the Peppermill) did not require corroborative
evidence. Jager testified his failure in wrongfully relying on the Peppermill’s inaccurate facial
recognition software, was the standard operating procedure of RPD officers, all officers did what he
had done—rely on facial recognition software to make arrestrs.
Jager’s testimony implicates the City of Reno, as expert testimony will reveal that it was
well known in the police industry at the time of Killinger’s arrest in 2023 that police officers must
use artificial intelligence software as only a tool and that no arrests can or should be made pursuant
to facial recognition software alone. This means that RPD failed to train its officers on the proper
use of artificial intelligence identifications and for years permitted arrests of persons based solely on
artificial intelligence. While Reno has recently changed its policies and implemented training to

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
assure that officers do not do what Jager did, make a wrongful arrest, it is unclear how many arrests
based on facial recognition alone have been wrongfully made over the years. Jager admitted a
wrongful arrest is a “terrible thing.” RPD’s failure to train on issues so important to avoid wrongful
arrests implicates municipal liability.2
C. No Undue Prejudice
The filing of the FAC will not cause undue prejudice to Jager as it is filed well within the
discovery guidelines and involves the same common core of operative faces as the original
complaint. Discovery has just begun, only one deposition has been taken and others are planned.
Defense counsel has not as yet taken a single deposition and plans its first deposition on February
24, 2026. The case was delayed several months while the parties engaged in unsuccessful settlement
negotiations. Pursuant to the Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery Plan Deadlines, ECF No.
43, filed November 25, 2025 and signed by this Court on November 25, 2025, the deadline to
amend pleadings and add parties is now April 7, 2026. Since this FAC is filed on January 25, 2026,
within three days of Jager’s deposition, it is well within the discovery guidelines.
D. No Bad Faith
There is no bad faith or dilatory motive in seeking to amend the complaint as Killinger seeks
to have the important issues of Jager’s liability, and RPD’s failure to train fully adjudicated on the
merits. There has been no repeated failure to cure deficiencies by file amendments because there
have been no previously filed amendments and no reported deficiencies. Jager responded to
Killinger’s complaint by filing an Answer, not a Motion to Dismiss. Jager has failed to allege any
2
A widespread or longstanding practice or custom amounting to standard operating
procedure, that is alleged either to be itself unlawful or to direct employees to act in an unlawful
manner may establish municipal liability. See, Endy v. County of Los Angeles, 975 F.3d 757, 769
(9th
Cir. 2020). A widespread “custom or practice” must be so “persistent” as to constitutes a
“permanent and well settled city policy.” See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. Of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658,
691 (1978); see also Ulrich v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 308 F.3d 968, 984 (9th
Cir. 2002) (“Showing a
‘longstanding practice or custom which constitutes the “standard operating procedure” of the local
government entity’ is one way to establish municipal liability.”)

6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
deficiencies in the original complaint or to attack the original complaint in any way whatsoever.
Counsel for Jager and Killinger have cooperated together in an amicable fashion, cordially granting
each to the other reasonable time extensions and courtesy. For all of these reasons, Killinger
respectfully requests that leave to amend be granted and the FAC, attached as Exhibit 3, be
detached and filed.
III. CONCLUSION
Granting leave to amend will allow this case to proceed on the merits. It will serve the
important public goal of achieving police accountability and avoiding future wrongful arrests of
innocent victims. It will restore the public trust by ensuring police officers uphold the law fairly,
prevent future abuses, and make the inhabitants of Reno feel safe and respected rather than fearful
of a wrongful arrest based on an inaccurate facial recognition identification. This case will involve
not only the punishment of wrongdoing, but also the fostering of better community-police relations
to maintain the legitimacy of police arrests.
DATED: This 25 day of January 2026
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Terri Keyser-Cooper
TERRI KEYSER-COOPER
Attorney for Jason Killinger

7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Terri Keyser-Cooper, declare as follows:
On this date, I served a copy of the following documents on the parties as follows:
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND FILE HIS FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
[ ] BY FED EX. By placing a true copy of the above-referenced document(s) with FedEx in a
sealed envelope with postage prepaid to the addressee(s) listed below.
[ ] BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION. By transmitting a true copy of the document(s) by
facsimile transmission
[ ] BY HAND-DELIVERY. By delivering a true copy enclosed in a sealed envelope to the
address(es) shown below.
[X] BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE. By electronically mailing a true copy of the document(s) to
defendants at the following email addresses via the Court’s electronic filing procedure:
ALICE K. HERBOLSHEIMER
ADAM CATE
JENNY SPARKS
Reno City Attorney’s Office
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
Herbolsheimera@reno.go
DATED this 25th day of January 2026
_/s/ Terri Keyser-Cooper
TERRI KEYSER-COOPER
Attorney for Plaintiff Jason Killinger

Killinger v. Jager Motion for First Amended Complaint

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Killinger v. Jager Motion for First Amended Complaint

More from This Is Reno

Recently uploaded