The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Joseph Cammarata, who sought to compel district courts to take various actions across three related federal matters spanning multiple jurisdictions. The court issued its non-precedential decision on Jan. 26, 2026, in case No. 25-1188.
Cammarata, proceeding pro se, filed the mandamus petition seeking court intervention in matters before both the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The petition was submitted pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and was considered by Circuit Judges Krause, Phipps, and Scirica.
The case stems from Cammarata's criminal conviction in October 2022 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on charges of conspiracy, wire fraud, and money laundering. The charges were based on his submission of false claims to securities class action claims administrators, according to the court record. In June 2023, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison with monetary liability exceeding $48 million.
The Third Circuit previously reviewed Cammarata's criminal case on appeal, affirming his convictions for conspiracy, wire fraud, and money laundering. However, the appeals court vacated the restitution order and vacated the forfeiture order in part, remanding the matter for further proceedings in *United States of America v. Joseph Cammarata*, C.A. No. 23-2110.
While the criminal proceedings were ongoing, the Securities and Exchange Commission also became involved in related matters, though the court's opinion was cut off before providing complete details about the SEC's role in the case.
The mandamus petition addressed in the recent Third Circuit decision involved three related federal court matters: a criminal case numbered 2:21-cr-00427-001, a civil case numbered 2:21-cv-04845 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and another criminal case numbered 3:22-cr-00639-001 in the District of New Jersey.
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that compels a court or government official to perform a duty they are legally obligated to perform. Courts typically grant mandamus petitions only when the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and shows that no other adequate remedy exists.
The Third Circuit's decision was issued as a per curiam opinion, meaning it was decided by the full panel without attribution to a specific judge. The court noted that the disposition does not constitute binding precedent under Internal Operating Procedure 5.7, limiting its precedential value for future cases.
Cammarata's decision to proceed pro se, or represent himself without an attorney, is notable in the complex federal litigation context. Pro se litigants face significant challenges in navigating procedural requirements and legal standards, particularly in mandamus proceedings that require demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting court intervention.
The case highlights the complexity of federal litigation involving multiple districts and interconnected criminal and civil proceedings. The coordination of related matters across different federal districts can create procedural complications, especially when defendants or parties seek specific court actions through extraordinary remedies like mandamus.
The underlying securities fraud scheme that led to Cammarata's conviction involved false claims submitted to class action settlement administrators. Securities class action settlements often involve complex distribution processes overseen by court-appointed administrators who process claims from investors seeking compensation for alleged corporate wrongdoing.
The substantial monetary liability of over $48 million imposed in Cammarata's case reflects the significant financial harm associated with his fraudulent activities. The Third Circuit's partial vacation of the forfeiture order suggests there were issues with how the district court calculated or imposed certain financial penalties that required further consideration on remand.
The involvement of multiple federal agencies and court districts in Cammarata's various proceedings demonstrates the comprehensive nature of federal enforcement efforts in complex financial fraud cases. The coordination between criminal prosecution and civil enforcement by agencies like the SEC is common in securities fraud matters.
The denial of the mandamus petition means Cammarata's requests for specific district court actions will not be compelled by the appeals court. He may continue to pursue relief through normal procedural channels in the respective district courts, though the Third Circuit's decision suggests his mandamus arguments lacked the extraordinary circumstances typically required for such relief.
The case serves as an example of how federal courts handle complex, multi-jurisdictional matters and the high standards required for obtaining extraordinary relief through mandamus petitions. The non-precedential nature of the decision limits its broader impact while resolving the specific dispute involving Cammarata's various federal proceedings.