ORDER

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

On January 21, 2015, the court issued an order denying defendant's motion to dismiss his indictment for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 95. Defendant filed a request "for a more definite statement" under Rule 12(e) because he "is uncertain as to the bases of the Court's denial." ECF No. 96 at 1. Initially, the court disregarded the request as not provided for by rules of court. ECF 97. In light of defendant's most recent filing requesting a status, ECF 98, the court exercises its discretion to consider the merits of the first request, to the extent it can discern what defendant seeks. Because 12(e) applies to vague pleadings and not orders of the court, the court construes the request as one for reconsideration. As set forth below, the motion for reconsideration is denied.

Because defendant's motion was filed within twenty-eight days of the court's order and entry of judgment, the court construes it as one brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). Motions for reconsideration are permissible in criminal cases. See United States v. Mendez, No. 07-00011, 2008 WL 2561962, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2008); accord L.R. 430(i). They are governed by the same rules as their equivalents in civil cases. See Mendez, 2008 WL 2561962, at *2. In general, a motion to reconsider founded on Rule 59(e) may be granted (1) to correct "manifest errors of law or fact," (2) to present new, previously unavailable evidence, (3) to prevent manifest injustice, or (4) to account for "an intervening change in controlling law." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011).

Defendant does not clearly state the basis for his motion, but the court construes his argument as essentially seeking to correct errors of law or fact and prevent manifest injustice. However, his motion relies on arguments and facts he presented in his original motion to dismiss the indictment, matters the court considered and rejected in issuing its previous order. Compare Order, ECF No. 95 (stating "the jurisdictional requirement is satisfied whether or not the NCUA insures against losses from robberies" and "Counsel was therefore not ineffective in failing to raise a jurisdictional challenge to the offense"), with Mot., ECF No. 96 (arguing "[b]ased on the Ninth and Tenth Amendment Mr. Smith had a right to have his [a]ttorney raise a jurisdictional issue. . . ."). The only issue the court may construe as a new claim is defendant's statement that the "order does not address any time restraints where [defendant's] issues were timely presented for review." ECF No. 96 at 2. Defendant's original motion to dismiss did not refer to "time restraints," and the court does not find any timeliness issues requiring resolution in response to the present motion. Defendant has not identified any manifest injustice resulting from the prior order.

Defendant's filing construed as a motion for reconsideration is DENIED with prejudice. This disposes finally of ECF No. 96.

IT IS SO ORDERED.