Is there a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress or malicious prosecution?

failure to provide medical care, governmental immunity applies. The allegations here are akin to those in Scannell v. County of Riverside (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 596, 609, where the plaintiff alleged the same underlying facts to support his malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. The court held that the immunity provided by Government Code section 821.6 for the malicious prosecution claim applied equally to the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, reasoning: "To allow an intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action in this situation would exalt form and disregard substance. It would permit public entity and employee immunity to be avoided simply by denominating the cause of action as one for intentional infliction of emotional distress rather than malicious prosecution." (Scannell v. County of Riverside, supra, at p. 609.)