Pedrego

MEMORANDUM *

Cherie Vigil (formerly Pedrego) appeals the district court’s order vacating its earlier order granting Vigil’s motion to recover fees and costs pursuant to the Hyde Amendment, 111 Stat. 2519 (1997). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we do not recount it here.

The district court’s order of February 17, 2005, dismissing the indictment without prejudice was a “final judgment” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(1)(B). A dismissal without prejudice has the legal effect of rendering the action as if it had never been filed. United States v. California, 932 F.2d 1346, 1351 (9th Cir.1991). *444 Thus, while the prosecution remained free to refile charges, the February 17, 2005 order terminated the criminal action. See Mitchell v. Bd. of Governors of Wash. State Bar Ass’n, 145 F.2d 827, 828 (9th Cir.1944) (per curiam) (“A proceeding is none the less terminated because it is dismissed without prejudice.”).

The district court therefore was without jurisdiction to enter its later order of September 28, 2006, dismissing the indictment with prejudice. The district…