Whether a district court can reopen a case and issue a partial prefiling judgment on some claims after a plaintiff's voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)

A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), (B) terminates the entire action, inclusive of all claims, without a court order, and permits a plaintiff to replead the same claims, to add new parties and claims within one year of the notice or within the applicable statute of limitations for the claim(s) whichever timeperiod closes last. “When a complaint is withdrawn under Rule 41(a)(1), the merits of that complaint are not an appropriate area of further inquiry for the federal court. ... the Rules Enabling Act does not give us authority to create a generalized federal common law of malicious prosecution divorced from concerns with the efficient and just processing of cases in federal court. ” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx, 496 US. 384, 412 (1990) The question presented, in which there is a divide among the courts, is whether it is constitutionally permissible for a district court to reopen a case, issue further orders and a prefiling partial judgment on the merits of some claims (not all) under Rule 11(b), (c)(1), (3), (4) after a plaintiff has filed a Rule 41(a)(l)(A)(i), (B) voluntary dismissal without prejudice that immediately terminated the entire action, not some of the plaintiff ’s claims.