to consider the defaulted claims. See Henderson, 730 F.3d at 560; Maples v. Stegall, 340 F.3d 433, 439 (6th Cir.2003). Our recent decision in Henderson considered very similar facts to those in this case: the petitioner, a prisoner in Michigan, without pointing to any specific inaction by prison officials, simply alleged that he gave his filing to prison officials five days before the filing deadline, and it arrived one day late. 730 F.3d at 560. We concluded that he demonstrated cause for the default, holding that “when a prisoner submits a petition to the prison mailroom five days prior to a filing deadline and it is not delivered there is cause to excuse the procedural default.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ivy v. Caspari, 173 F.3d 1136, 1141 (8th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). As Henderson demonstrates, government
holding that a timely motion for reconsideration tolls the statute of limitations even if the motion is procedurally invalid holding that in the case of state procedural default a federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate among other things that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice holding that the standard for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as the standard for a motion to dismiss holding that because the finality of judgment is effectively postponed by the timely filing of a motion under rule 59 the deadline for filing a motion for attorneys fees is tolled until the postjudgment motion is resolved holding that a prisoner need not demonstrate that the nondelivery of a motion was the states fault because it is the fact of nondelivery of a prisoners timely and properly mailed motion not the reason for that nondelivery that constitutes cause for the procedural default